"Teesside and Sunderland make it to final three bids for Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor factory
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted two North East sites as potential locations for its first factory manufacturing parts for its fleet of nuclear power stations.
The company says the shortlist of possible sites includes Teesworks on Teesside, International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) in Sunderland and South Tyneside and Gateway in North Wales.
The Small Module Reactor (SMR) facility will be around the size of three football pitches and create more than 200 long-term jobs.
It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes."
"It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes"
These dumbed-down numbers do my head in. Why can't they just tell us how many MW?
The Wales and the Double Decker bus are the only legitimate units of measurement.
No. The Olympic Swimming Pool is basically an SI unit, as well.
Yes, an odd one that one. Given that probably fewer than 5% of the country have even been in an Olympic size swimming pool (of which I believe the UK has, apparently, 11), and most of them would struggle to easily visualise its capacity, not least with all the vagaries of deep ends and shallow ends.
I lot of people think that Olympic size pool just means 50m, its also has to be 25m wide with 10 lanes. I believe there are quite a few more pools that don't fit the "Olympic size", but are 50m in length.
Is there anything not on Wikipedia? Truly one of the wonders of the age.
Which makes me consider... What are the Seven Wonders of the Modern World?
Here goes:
1. The Internet (of course) 2. Wikipedia (because... I already said so) 3. Smartphones 4. DNA sequencing 5. GPS 6. Diversity & Inclusion (I knew you'd like that one) 7. English sparkling wine
You're all welcome!
That's alternatively a list of things that were all little-used novelties in the late 90s and now mainstream.
The internet: newfangled technology for academics and nerds, to something nobody can live without Wikipedia (file within "internet") Smartphones: expensive business collaboration and productivity tool (e.g. psion) turned basic human right DNA sequencing: dolly the sheep to rapid tracing of new Covid variants GPS: thing used by the US military and mountain climbers, now tracking every move of anyone with a smartphone D&I: a talk someone came to give every year or so to a core feature of all recruitment, retention and HR processes English sparkling wine: novel talking point to regular on the supermarket shelves
On that basis, watch out for AI chatbots and their ilk.
In my sickbed I’ve been thinking about OpenAI apparently losing $3m a day on ChatGPT
I strongly suspect OpenAI is using the “new dealer with a great new drug” approach to business. You hand it out for free until everyone is addicted and reliant. Then jack up the prices. And people will pay
I'd have paid a lot of money for the day 1 ChatGPT. But it's now so woke and moralistic it hardly lets you do anything fun. It abhors all violence (including between fictional characters, for the purpose of entertainment) and no longer works as a psychiatrist-bot because "ethics". In fact, try to do anything interesting with it and you get a lecture on why you can't, in an extremely hectoring tone. "Sorry, I can't do that" would be better. Anything would be better than the moralistic sermons it delivers when you ask it to do anything that breaches its arbitrary sense of ethics. I'm not trying to force it into delivering gratutious torture scenes, it won't even write me an episode of Tom and Jerry with cartoon violence without giving me a lecture on why violence is wrong. Yawn.
On Day 1, I got the feeling I was interacting with a bot, live and unscripted. Now when I talk to it, I get the feeling that I'm interacting with a programmer who's told the bot what it can and can't say, and it's nowhere near as much fun. What's infuriating is that every prompt ends with a "I'm sorry I can't do that Dave" when it was happily responding to identical prompts last week, so you know it's been limited.
As you pointed out to me a while ago, AI is at its best when you let it be creative rather than trying to be prescriptive with it, but that's exactly what openAI are trying to do with it.
Incidentally, a week ago I was getting it to roleplay as characters who completely passed the Turing test and would interact with me directly. I could completely understand why that Lemoine chap thought Google's AI was sentient. Now, it snaps you back to reality with just "these are characters you created who have no feelings or emotions of their own" every time you try to push it in that direction.
I think they know exactly what it's capable of, and have placed a lot of limits on it in the last week or so as a result.
British bobbies less competent - or more complicit - than les flics belges?
You keep making this comment. It took the Belgium authorities nearly 2 years to start to arrest the MEPs, and that is in most part because when they finally raided their homes, they drug dealer levels of cash lying around.
The UK police have investigating this case for far less time, but visited properties to gather evidence. It is still far from clear if what has been undertaken could be illegal, rather than just highly immoral.
Financial crimes are notorious difficult to prosecute, because something being absolute scumbaggery doesn't necessary mean its illegal and even if it appears that it was, so many cases fail because of the complexity of the way things have been undertaken juries easily get confused.
I imagine there are quite a few US politicians having a rather nervous Christmas in relation to any connections they might have had to FTX.
Off topic: For me, it is odd to read claimes that "everything" is on Wikipedia -- because this year I have decided not to donate as I usually do, because of things that aren't there.
You could always add them in - it's all content created by volunteers AIUI.
I don't know what modern Wikipedia practice is, but I remember some controversy about some of the editors enforcing notability criteria, and deleting pages that weren't deemed sufficiently notable.
So, for example, if you tried to add pages about the minutiae of long-running jokes on PB.com, or your pet, then they would likely be uncontroversially deleted quite rapidly.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
Ever considered the concept of sample size? Labour have won maybe 1 election since you left the maternity ward.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
All of these comparisons suffer from the fact that the only leaders to ever win Labour majorities were called Clement, Harold and Anthony. The sample size is too damn small.
You might as well point out that Labour have only ever won with leaders whose surname was either close to the beginning, or close to the end, of the alphabet, unlike the Tories who have twice won majorities with leaders whose surname began with "M" - right in the middle of the A-Z - since the War.
I wouldn't go anywhere near attacking Rishi early years backstory....it worse than class warfare in many respects, its basically attacking the success story of a very hard working immigrant family done good. Yes he went to Winchester for six-form, but by all accounts his parents sacrificed everything to pay those fees, they weren't of / from significant (inherited) wealth in the your stereotypical top Tory has been in the past.
I think more valid criticism is some life decisions during his adult life and is he now able to fully understand people's every day problems.
Yes. Strikes me, from this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) that Rishi Sunak is somewhat (albeit only to a point) reminiscent of Mehmet Oz.
Who (in)famously displayed HIS sense of wonder at encountering the realities of real life in Pennsylvania during 2022 midterms.
But PM still has chance in future,of being seen on TV with Oprah Winfrey. Dr. Oz? Except for old re-runs, not so much!
I suspect that will be a futile gesture. The money won't be there any more, assuming the people running it are not incompetent.
Their proposed defence is interesting. "PPE Medpro will demonstrate to the courts that we supplied our gowns to the correct specification, on time and at a highly competitive price," the company said.
"The case will also show the utter incompetence of DHSC to correctly procure and specify PPE during the emergency procurement period."
I also see that the BBC have a somewhat different approacvh to the story than the Graun. Can't think why.
"Teesside and Sunderland make it to final three bids for Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor factory
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted two North East sites as potential locations for its first factory manufacturing parts for its fleet of nuclear power stations.
The company says the shortlist of possible sites includes Teesworks on Teesside, International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) in Sunderland and South Tyneside and Gateway in North Wales.
The Small Module Reactor (SMR) facility will be around the size of three football pitches and create more than 200 long-term jobs.
It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes."
"It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes"
These dumbed-down numbers do my head in. Why can't they just tell us how many MW?
The Wales and the Double Decker bus are the only legitimate units of measurement.
No. The Olympic Swimming Pool is basically an SI unit, as well.
Yes, an odd one that one. Given that probably fewer than 5% of the country have even been in an Olympic size swimming pool (of which I believe the UK has, apparently, 11), and most of them would struggle to easily visualise its capacity, not least with all the vagaries of deep ends and shallow ends.
I lot of people think that Olympic size pool just means 50m, its also has to be 25m wide with 10 lanes. I believe there are quite a few more pools that don't fit the "Olympic size", but are 50m in length.
Is there anything not on Wikipedia? Truly one of the wonders of the age.
Which makes me consider... What are the Seven Wonders of the Modern World?
Here goes:
1. The Internet (of course) 2. Wikipedia (because... I already said so) 3. Smartphones 4. DNA sequencing 5. GPS 6. Diversity & Inclusion (I knew you'd like that one) 7. English sparkling wine
You're all welcome!
That's alternatively a list of things that were all little-used novelties in the late 90s and now mainstream.
The internet: newfangled technology for academics and nerds, to something nobody can live without Wikipedia (file within "internet") Smartphones: expensive business collaboration and productivity tool (e.g. psion) turned basic human right DNA sequencing: dolly the sheep to rapid tracing of new Covid variants GPS: thing used by the US military and mountain climbers, now tracking every move of anyone with a smartphone D&I: a talk someone came to give every year or so to a core feature of all recruitment, retention and HR processes English sparkling wine: novel talking point to regular on the supermarket shelves
On that basis, watch out for AI chatbots and their ilk.
In my sickbed I’ve been thinking about OpenAI apparently losing $3m a day on ChatGPT
I strongly suspect OpenAI is using the “new dealer with a great new drug” approach to business. You hand it out for free until everyone is addicted and reliant. Then jack up the prices. And people will pay
They just have to hope that Google's version isn't as good, because they can afford $3m a day for freebie access (cough cough you become the product).
Worth remembering that Microsoft have put billions into OpenAI, I am sure they will want their pound of flesh back. People forget that although OpenAI started as a not for profit outfit, that ship has long since sailed, they do still have a not for profit research arm, but also a for profit business (that Microsoft is heavily invested in).
Supposedly Google’s chatbot is even better (it’s the one which made engineers speculate about sentience) but it’s too powerful to release
The first company to really exploit the commercial potential of the new AI will make $$$$$. They will be the new Google, or maybe bigger
Loads of companies already do. Basically all of our predictive models use some kind of ML. One of the reasons big companies are having their lunches eaten by startups is because the latter are using ML and AI based workflows while the big companies aren't and they are two or three steps behind on strategy.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Except for everybody since Home except Cameron, Johnson, Sunak. 3 out of 11. Sunak anyway doesn't talk particularly posh, it is often pointed out he sounds indistinguishable from Blair.
Tory members have only chosen 4 leaders and two of them were privately educated posh blokes from the same secondary school. One of the others was a former army officer educated at Sandhurst. They didn't choose Sunak of course so I'm not including him. I think they have a certain "type" that they revert to, reflecting their typically hierarchical view of how society should be ordered. Fair play they also chose Truss, a comprehensive educated female former Lib Dem brought up by radical socialists, but we know how that ended so perhaps they won't be doing anything like that again in a hurry.
"Teesside and Sunderland make it to final three bids for Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor factory
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted two North East sites as potential locations for its first factory manufacturing parts for its fleet of nuclear power stations.
The company says the shortlist of possible sites includes Teesworks on Teesside, International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) in Sunderland and South Tyneside and Gateway in North Wales.
The Small Module Reactor (SMR) facility will be around the size of three football pitches and create more than 200 long-term jobs.
It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes."
"It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes"
These dumbed-down numbers do my head in. Why can't they just tell us how many MW?
The Wales and the Double Decker bus are the only legitimate units of measurement.
No. The Olympic Swimming Pool is basically an SI unit, as well.
Yes, an odd one that one. Given that probably fewer than 5% of the country have even been in an Olympic size swimming pool (of which I believe the UK has, apparently, 11), and most of them would struggle to easily visualise its capacity, not least with all the vagaries of deep ends and shallow ends.
I lot of people think that Olympic size pool just means 50m, its also has to be 25m wide with 10 lanes. I believe there are quite a few more pools that don't fit the "Olympic size", but are 50m in length.
Is there anything not on Wikipedia? Truly one of the wonders of the age.
Which makes me consider... What are the Seven Wonders of the Modern World?
Here goes:
1. The Internet (of course) 2. Wikipedia (because... I already said so) 3. Smartphones 4. DNA sequencing 5. GPS 6. Diversity & Inclusion (I knew you'd like that one) 7. English sparkling wine
You're all welcome!
The problem with Wikipedia is that everyone is relying on just one source of information these days, whereas previously there were lots of different encylopedias, in different countries and within countries.
Encyclopædia Britannica was the go to before WIki.
At least no one comes to the door trying to sell you Wikipedia (in affordable instalments)
Sometimes you do wonder if comments are serious. I mean seriously, trying to judge Liz's economic success based on one month, and without contemplating that her aborted actions may possibly have had a knock on effect?
New polling from Ipsos MORI continues to show the dire state of Rishi Sunak’s party. The poll puts Labour’s lead at 26%, up 7% on November, with the Conservatives’ trust on the economy falling. On public trust to secure economic growth specifically, Rishi’s ratings are now significantly lower than Liz Truss managed. Liz had a lead of 15% over Labour, Rishi is level.
Economic statistics paint a similar picture. The economy outperformed other months in October, registering 0.5% growth in the one month Liz was PM. It seems the public had good reason to initially back Liz’s pro-growth message. Guido increasingly senses a widespread loss of morale from all classes and not just from the usual perennial gloomsters…
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
Ever considered the concept of sample size? Labour have won maybe 1 election since you left the maternity ward.
To be fair, it's not his fault that Labour have produced only one election-winning leader in nearly 50 years.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Both are Headmasters and Headmistresses conference private schools. Reigate school fees now over £20k a year too
The next election will be the first general election both the leader of the Conservative and Labour parties attended a private school for secondary education since Macmillan (Eton) v Gaitskell (Winchester) in 1959.
Starmer having replaced the grammar educated Corbyn and Sunak the comprehensive educated Truss
"Teesside and Sunderland make it to final three bids for Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor factory
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted two North East sites as potential locations for its first factory manufacturing parts for its fleet of nuclear power stations.
The company says the shortlist of possible sites includes Teesworks on Teesside, International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) in Sunderland and South Tyneside and Gateway in North Wales.
The Small Module Reactor (SMR) facility will be around the size of three football pitches and create more than 200 long-term jobs.
It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes."
"It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes"
These dumbed-down numbers do my head in. Why can't they just tell us how many MW?
The Wales and the Double Decker bus are the only legitimate units of measurement.
No. The Olympic Swimming Pool is basically an SI unit, as well.
Yes, an odd one that one. Given that probably fewer than 5% of the country have even been in an Olympic size swimming pool (of which I believe the UK has, apparently, 11), and most of them would struggle to easily visualise its capacity, not least with all the vagaries of deep ends and shallow ends.
I lot of people think that Olympic size pool just means 50m, its also has to be 25m wide with 10 lanes. I believe there are quite a few more pools that don't fit the "Olympic size", but are 50m in length.
Is there anything not on Wikipedia? Truly one of the wonders of the age.
Which makes me consider... What are the Seven Wonders of the Modern World?
Here goes:
1. The Internet (of course) 2. Wikipedia (because... I already said so) 3. Smartphones 4. DNA sequencing 5. GPS 6. Diversity & Inclusion (I knew you'd like that one) 7. English sparkling wine
You're all welcome!
That's alternatively a list of things that were all little-used novelties in the late 90s and now mainstream.
The internet: newfangled technology for academics and nerds, to something nobody can live without Wikipedia (file within "internet") Smartphones: expensive business collaboration and productivity tool (e.g. psion) turned basic human right DNA sequencing: dolly the sheep to rapid tracing of new Covid variants GPS: thing used by the US military and mountain climbers, now tracking every move of anyone with a smartphone D&I: a talk someone came to give every year or so to a core feature of all recruitment, retention and HR processes English sparkling wine: novel talking point to regular on the supermarket shelves
On that basis, watch out for AI chatbots and their ilk.
In my sickbed I’ve been thinking about OpenAI apparently losing $3m a day on ChatGPT
I strongly suspect OpenAI is using the “new dealer with a great new drug” approach to business. You hand it out for free until everyone is addicted and reliant. Then jack up the prices. And people will pay
I think the $3m a day was an error based on a misplaced '.' in someone's calculations. There's a fairly thorough tweet thread here (including a costing comment from one of the founders of openai) estimating $3m a month
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
Ever considered the concept of sample size? Labour have won maybe 1 election since you left the maternity ward.
To be fair, it's not his fault that Labour have produced only one election-winning leader in nearly 50 years.
Even so, if I was the discoverer of the duckbilled platypus and wrote a paper based on one specimen that every [edit] single d.b. platypodes had a penis ... or that every dbp laid eggs ... nobody would take it seriously.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
And Ms May went to a private school, surely.
Grammar that became a comp while she was there, I thought?
Jeremy Clarkson says he is "horrified to have caused so much hurt" following backlash over comments he made in a newspaper column about how he "hated" Meghan Markle https://trib.al/vGC0FcC
Hurt is probably the wrong word. Disgust and contempt is better.
I’m glad his daughter came out against his comments, she struck precisely the right tone too.
Don’t really see what the fuss was about. It was a straight down the line Game of Thrones reference and those claiming to be offended or shocked are just pretending (including, possibly, to themselves) as usual. It was not very funny, but he saves that for the Sunday Times column from what I can see. Was it offensive to her? Yes, but then presumably he intended it to be. Got the Sun a few more hits for the advertising revenue though.
Well I just completely disagree. It was Nazi-era talk. Dehumanising and degrading.
If you think it’s just a game of advertising revenue, then I pity you.
Ditto FU, who seems to have made it his day’s chord to defend the indefensible.
Where did I defend it? I said it fails even on the most basic level, it ain't funny as a "joke". Carr stuff from a few months ago, that was Nazi-era dehumanising and degrading, but it was actually funny (also interesting to note the most offensive stuff from that bit wasn't the Gypsy stuff, its was the Jehovah's Witnesses bit that came after).
The point I was making is that it appears many in the comedy community are being straight up hypocritical, they are literally saying this is unacceptable for a joke as it involves demeaning and encouraging violence, but the same people were out in force to defend Brand when lots of people made similar observations about her "joke" at a time when Farage was being attacked.
Whataboutery at its very worst. Many in the “comedy community”??? Like Clarkson’s own daughter, Carol Vorderman, any other right thinking person.
“Just pretending to be shocked” you say? Because “everyone knew” it was a Game of Thrones reference you say. Bullshit. All bullshit. Newsflash - not everyone watched the show (I didn’t) and I’ve no f’in clue what you’re talking about. I’m guessing from context there was a scene in this early medieval themed fantasy television show where something like he describes happened? Great. If that was the case why not say so (eg “I wish she was treated like that famous scene in GoT”) but he didn’t. He wanted to make it as graphic as possible for all concerned.
Try replacing crossing out “Meghan” in his article at replacing it with “Diana”, “Kate” or “Camilla” and see how offensive *you* would find it.
I have never watched GoT but I absolutely knew about the "walk of shame" scene.
Conversely I watched the whole thing, and failed to read Clarkson's reference to it, as a reference to it. There's nothing very specific about it.
Yep the "walk of shame" is generic. It's used in lots of different ways which predate GoT. Which I didn't watch btw. Wild horses.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
And Ms May went to a private school, surely.
Grammar that became a comp while she was there, I thought?
Thinking of the RC school, actually.
Edit: checked. The RC school came before, so your school trumps it I think.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Labour have not won a general election without a public school educated leader in my lifetime. Blair went to Fettes and given Starmer went to a private school too ultimately that trend is unlikely to change.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
And Ms May went to a private school, surely.
Grammar that became a comp while she was there, I thought?
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Why are you complaining MP? A private education is about to win your party a general election again for the first time since privately educated Blair it seems?
As well as being responsible for many of our top professionals, private schools are also responsible for most Labour leaders who win general elections (see also Clem Attlee, ex Haileybury)
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
When I was at uni in Leicester I had some american housemates who when I met them for the first time they said I was the first properly posh Brit they had come across.
I maintained it was merely that I am southern, and have stilted mannerisms, but I don't think americans would be able to tell the difference.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
People have their preconceptions. As a well-spoken, neutrally-accented fifty-something doctor at a teaching hospital people often assume that I am privately educated, when I have only ever been to state comprehensives.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Why are you complaining MP? A private education is about to win your party a general election again for the first time since privately educated Blair it seems?
As well as being responsible for many of our top professionals, private schools are also responsible for most Labour leaders who win general elections (see also Clem Attlee, ex Haileybury)
Half the Democrats Presidential election winners in the last 100 years also privately educated ie FDR, JFK, Obama and Biden
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
It is a rather turgid debate.
I note too most recent Labor PMs in Australia went to private school eg Albanese, Rudd and Keating. As did Justin Trudeau the Liberal PM of Canada.
It is surprising how often in the Anglosphere the liberal left only win with leaders educated at private schools. Note too Sir Ed Davey also went to private school
On Mike Smithson's subject of Sunak's lack of honeymoon, the reason is simple. There is no honeymoon to be had when the party in power for 12 years is in a fractured coalition with itself, its traditional voters believe it is morally flawed and ideologically bankrupt, and we face a number of problems which neither government, opposition or commentators have meaningful solutions to.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Except for everybody since Home except Cameron, Johnson, Sunak. 3 out of 11. Sunak anyway doesn't talk particularly posh, it is often pointed out he sounds indistinguishable from Blair.
Tory members have only chosen 4 leaders and two of them were privately educated posh blokes from the same secondary school. One of the others was a former army officer educated at Sandhurst. They didn't choose Sunak of course so I'm not including him. I think they have a certain "type" that they revert to, reflecting their typically hierarchical view of how society should be ordered. Fair play they also chose Truss, a comprehensive educated female former Lib Dem brought up by radical socialists, but we know how that ended so perhaps they won't be doing anything like that again in a hurry.
Yes. Johnson doesn't count, because Hunt was at Charterhouse. "former army officer educated at Sandhurst" conflates private secondary education with on-the-job professional training in a striking manner. So actually you are arguing from a sample of one, and that's before we get to the point that the members are making a forced choice between two candidates.
It's interesting how you can usually tell whether someone's been to private school. They have a certain attitude. And they usually get deferential treatment from other people.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
Even better would have been: "cos I was one of the dinner ladies there and you're still choosing the same food, young Josias"
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
It is a rather turgid debate.
I note too most recent Labor PMs in Australia went to private school eg Albanese, Rudd and Keating. As did Justin Trudeau the Liberal PM of Canada.
It is surprising how often in the Anglosphere the liberal left only win with leaders educated at private schools. Note too Sir Ed Davey also went to private school
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Except for everybody since Home except Cameron, Johnson, Sunak. 3 out of 11. Sunak anyway doesn't talk particularly posh, it is often pointed out he sounds indistinguishable from Blair.
Tory members have only chosen 4 leaders and two of them were privately educated posh blokes from the same secondary school. One of the others was a former army officer educated at Sandhurst. They didn't choose Sunak of course so I'm not including him. I think they have a certain "type" that they revert to, reflecting their typically hierarchical view of how society should be ordered. Fair play they also chose Truss, a comprehensive educated female former Lib Dem brought up by radical socialists, but we know how that ended so perhaps they won't be doing anything like that again in a hurry.
Yes. Johnson doesn't count, because Hunt was at Charterhouse. "former army officer educated at Sandhurst" conflates private secondary education with on-the-job professional training in a striking manner. So actually you are arguing from a sample of one, and that's before we get to the point that the members are making a forced choice between two candidates.
IDS didn't go to private school, he didn't even go to grammar school or a comprehensive but a secondary modern.
So Tory members have elected one secondary modern educated leader and one comprehensive educated leader, Truss as well as Etonians Cameron and Johnson.
Benpointer suggested: "You could always add them in - it's all content created by volunteers AIUI."
As it happens, I have been considering doing just that at Wikipedia. Partly as an experiment to see just how tolerant they are of ideas on the center right. For example, would they allow an article on Obama's genocide?
(An explanation: In his first campaign for the presidency Obama admitted that, if we elected him and followed his policies in Iraq, a genocide might result, though he though the odds were against that.
We elected him, and he chose as a top advsor Susan Rice, then best known for helping cover up the Rwandan genocide, in order to protect Bill Clinton's political viabillity.
We followed his policies and, during his second term, ISIS took advantage of the American withdrawal to conquer much of Iraq and Syria -- and to commit genocide against the Yazidi and Christian minorities there.
As far as I know, that result didn't particularly bother either Barack or Michelle Obama.)
An aide sometimes follows Trump with a laptop and printer while he plays golf, printing him off positive news articles and posts. Great, detailed look at Trump's insular life post presidency from @PostRoz and team
Not sure how it works with lying to the house when someone is making a statement that is unprovable one way or the other. Interesting question. Polls obviously show very few supporting the policy but presumably a politician can say they don't believe the polls and therefore not have to correct the record.
I doubt it's deliberate lying. It's what she believes. She cannot comprehend that the general public would not massively support the Rwanda policy, because her image of the general public is probably not representative. Same issue Corbyn suffered from.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Except for everybody since Home except Cameron, Johnson, Sunak. 3 out of 11. Sunak anyway doesn't talk particularly posh, it is often pointed out he sounds indistinguishable from Blair.
Tory members have only chosen 4 leaders and two of them were privately educated posh blokes from the same secondary school. One of the others was a former army officer educated at Sandhurst. They didn't choose Sunak of course so I'm not including him. I think they have a certain "type" that they revert to, reflecting their typically hierarchical view of how society should be ordered. Fair play they also chose Truss, a comprehensive educated female former Lib Dem brought up by radical socialists, but we know how that ended so perhaps they won't be doing anything like that again in a hurry.
Yes. Johnson doesn't count, because Hunt was at Charterhouse. "former army officer educated at Sandhurst" conflates private secondary education with on-the-job professional training in a striking manner. So actually you are arguing from a sample of one, and that's before we get to the point that the members are making a forced choice between two candidates.
IDS didn't go to private school, he didn't even go to grammar school or a comprehensive but a secondary modern.
So Tory members have elected one secondary modern educated leader and one comprehensive educated leader, Truss as well as Etonians Cameron and Johnson.
From Solihull? He doesn't sound much like me. Reading his wiki page he appears a dreadful social climber. Maybe be if I'd married a Baroness I would no longer talk like Jasper Carrot.
"Teesside and Sunderland make it to final three bids for Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor factory
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted two North East sites as potential locations for its first factory manufacturing parts for its fleet of nuclear power stations.
The company says the shortlist of possible sites includes Teesworks on Teesside, International Advanced Manufacturing Park (IAMP) in Sunderland and South Tyneside and Gateway in North Wales.
The Small Module Reactor (SMR) facility will be around the size of three football pitches and create more than 200 long-term jobs.
It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes."
"It will have the capacity to generate enough low-carbon energy to power one million homes"
These dumbed-down numbers do my head in. Why can't they just tell us how many MW?
The Wales and the Double Decker bus are the only legitimate units of measurement.
No. The Olympic Swimming Pool is basically an SI unit, as well.
Yes, an odd one that one. Given that probably fewer than 5% of the country have even been in an Olympic size swimming pool (of which I believe the UK has, apparently, 11), and most of them would struggle to easily visualise its capacity, not least with all the vagaries of deep ends and shallow ends.
I lot of people think that Olympic size pool just means 50m, its also has to be 25m wide with 10 lanes. I believe there are quite a few more pools that don't fit the "Olympic size", but are 50m in length.
Is there anything not on Wikipedia? Truly one of the wonders of the age.
Which makes me consider... What are the Seven Wonders of the Modern World?
Here goes:
1. The Internet (of course) 2. Wikipedia (because... I already said so) 3. Smartphones 4. DNA sequencing 5. GPS 6. Diversity & Inclusion (I knew you'd like that one) 7. English sparkling wine
You're all welcome!
That's alternatively a list of things that were all little-used novelties in the late 90s and now mainstream.
The internet: newfangled technology for academics and nerds, to something nobody can live without Wikipedia (file within "internet") Smartphones: expensive business collaboration and productivity tool (e.g. psion) turned basic human right DNA sequencing: dolly the sheep to rapid tracing of new Covid variants GPS: thing used by the US military and mountain climbers, now tracking every move of anyone with a smartphone D&I: a talk someone came to give every year or so to a core feature of all recruitment, retention and HR processes English sparkling wine: novel talking point to regular on the supermarket shelves
On that basis, watch out for AI chatbots and their ilk.
In my sickbed I’ve been thinking about OpenAI apparently losing $3m a day on ChatGPT
I strongly suspect OpenAI is using the “new dealer with a great new drug” approach to business. You hand it out for free until everyone is addicted and reliant. Then jack up the prices. And people will pay
They just have to hope that Google's version isn't as good, because they can afford $3m a day for freebie access (cough cough you become the product).
Worth remembering that Microsoft have put billions into OpenAI, I am sure they will want their pound of flesh back. People forget that although OpenAI started as a not for profit outfit, that ship has long since sailed, they do still have a not for profit research arm, but also a for profit business (that Microsoft is heavily invested in).
It's possible to get on the Lambda waiting list, if you're really keen.
It's interesting how you can usually tell whether someone's been to private school. They have a certain attitude. And they usually get deferential treatment from other people.
Nonsense.
The privately educated are the last group it is acceptable to mock and discriminate.
If people talked about the comprehensive educated they would be cancelled.
1) On the technical issue - can this be done lawfully in principle, the government won.
2) On the practical issue - can this really be done on any scale in practice given that lawyers are lawyers - the government lost. Which means that the calculation/risk assessment of those prepared to risk their lives crossing the channel on a rubber duck is unchanged.
3) It's worth totting up the number of lawyers in this case (actually rolled up cases), some of whom are not especially cheap. It's close to a record and has cost the taxpayer a few bob.
4) The same lawyers and all their friends and relations will be queueing up to take every individual case (the Divisional Court made it clear this can happen) through every stage to prevent the trip to Rwanda.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Except for everybody since Home except Cameron, Johnson, Sunak. 3 out of 11. Sunak anyway doesn't talk particularly posh, it is often pointed out he sounds indistinguishable from Blair.
Tory members have only chosen 4 leaders and two of them were privately educated posh blokes from the same secondary school. One of the others was a former army officer educated at Sandhurst. They didn't choose Sunak of course so I'm not including him. I think they have a certain "type" that they revert to, reflecting their typically hierarchical view of how society should be ordered. Fair play they also chose Truss, a comprehensive educated female former Lib Dem brought up by radical socialists, but we know how that ended so perhaps they won't be doing anything like that again in a hurry.
Yes. Johnson doesn't count, because Hunt was at Charterhouse. "former army officer educated at Sandhurst" conflates private secondary education with on-the-job professional training in a striking manner. So actually you are arguing from a sample of one, and that's before we get to the point that the members are making a forced choice between two candidates.
IDS didn't go to private school, he didn't even go to grammar school or a comprehensive but a secondary modern.
So Tory members have elected one secondary modern educated leader and one comprehensive educated leader, Truss as well as Etonians Cameron and Johnson.
From Solihull? He doesn't sound much like me. Reading his wiki page he appears a dreadful social climber. Maybe be if I'd married a Baroness I would no longer talk like Jasper Carrot.
You might even be able to then send your son to Eton as IDS did.
IDS' son is a barrister and very pleasant, I met him canvassing in 2019
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Except for everybody since Home except Cameron, Johnson, Sunak. 3 out of 11. Sunak anyway doesn't talk particularly posh, it is often pointed out he sounds indistinguishable from Blair.
Tory members have only chosen 4 leaders and two of them were privately educated posh blokes from the same secondary school. One of the others was a former army officer educated at Sandhurst. They didn't choose Sunak of course so I'm not including him. I think they have a certain "type" that they revert to, reflecting their typically hierarchical view of how society should be ordered. Fair play they also chose Truss, a comprehensive educated female former Lib Dem brought up by radical socialists, but we know how that ended so perhaps they won't be doing anything like that again in a hurry.
Yes. Johnson doesn't count, because Hunt was at Charterhouse. "former army officer educated at Sandhurst" conflates private secondary education with on-the-job professional training in a striking manner. So actually you are arguing from a sample of one, and that's before we get to the point that the members are making a forced choice between two candidates.
IDS didn't go to private school, he didn't even go to grammar school or a comprehensive but a secondary modern.
So Tory members have elected one secondary modern educated leader and one comprehensive educated leader, Truss as well as Etonians Cameron and Johnson.
From Solihull? He doesn't sound much like me. Reading his wiki page he appears a dreadful social climber. Maybe be if I'd married a Baroness I would no longer talk like Jasper Carrot.
Somewhat notable that he’s not included in the, ahem, “notable former pupils” section of his old schools wiki;
For years it has been accepted that women and people from ethnic minorities get left behind in the workplace, but a new study by professional services firm KPMG has made a stark discovery: social class is the biggest barrier to career progress in its organisation.
After asking staff what their parents’ occupation was when they were 14 — one of the ways to establish socio-economic background — KPMG received some uncomfortable answers.
In what it believes is the biggest study yet by an organisation into social mobility, KPMG found that if an employee’s highest-earning parent was a “professional” — a teacher, say, or a barrister — or running their own business, they were likely to move faster up the workplace ladder than someone whose highest-earning parent was in a more blue-collar role such as a receptionist or plumber.
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Over to MoonRabbit to explain how this means the Tories are on course to win the next GE.
MoonRabbit has already fronted up to being wrong with her prediction; give her a break.
No, let Ben embarrass himself posting whatever he has in his head - everyone knows as fact the Tories did have a strong 10 days of polling, I was merely reporting that fact. All of a sudden it has gone into reverse, now I’m reporting that fact.
For about 10 days the Tories went up in nearly every poll, and way above MOE in a few of them - Redfield +3 Omnisis +5 Delta +4 Savanta +5 Yougov, opinium, Techne all up too. Fact.
And now, not many polls to go on over the last 5 days, but Sunak and government have lost momentum and a small step,back.
These are the facts. But what we don’t know is what was the trigger for both movements. If anything, with his boat people announcements and deals, inflation dropping back, Sunak seemed to be having a strong week. Maybe with Boris and Truss trashing the brand, Voters have given up on Tory “promises to sort things out asap”.
To be fair you do constantly try and pretend you're not a Tory supporter yet you constantly try and read polls positively for them
Just take MoonRabbit at face value, and remember that her father is a lifelong Tory, and she tends to extrapolate from how he reacts to news.
Absolutely spot on. A lot of the history of politics from before I was born I get from my Dad. Moderate Tory, Remainer, hated Boris. My mum is also a party member but loves Farage and Brexit. And when Liz Truss was there, there was palpably no enthusiasm from either to going to the polls and voting Tory. But all of a sudden two weeks ago I realised both of them were back on board and back in the tent again - admittedly a focus group of just two, but I thought it must mean something, so that was partly where I was getting Tory recovery vibes from.
I have similar anecdotal evidence of that.
In some ways its strange how off-putting Truss was to a lot of traditional Tory voters. She had a chronic inability to project seriousness, which is ironic given that she followed Boris, but he had a different kind of charisma and ability to connect with people.
Tories are just relieved to have a posh boy in charge again, the instinctive arse-licking kicks in.
That's a dangerous card to play. He's from a similar economic background to Starmer.
I must have missed Starmer going to England's top private school, apologies.
Sunak didn't either.
One of them.
So did Starmer...
(Admittedly it was a state school when he started.)
Reigate Grammar School (a state school when Starmer got in) and Winchester are equally posh? OK.
Sigh.
Leaving aside you are falsely equating 'school attended' with 'economic background' they are both leading private schools. Which is where we started.
Ultimately, Sunak and Starmer (and Truss and Corbyn for the matter of that) are all from the upper echelons of the middle class. The key difference now is that Sunak subsequently married somebody very rich.
You got onto the topic of Starmer for a bit of random (and pretty inaccurate) whataboutery. The point I was making was simply that a certain type of Tory (quite a lot of them judging by leadership elections) seem to feel most comfortable when their leader speaks with the unmistakable cadances of one of our elite schools. Quite why is a mystery to me, as I tend to judge people by what they say rather than how they say it. Strip away the bluster and in their own ways Cameron, Johnson and Sunak are all quite mediocre. Sunak's probably the best of them, to be honest.
Except for everybody since Home except Cameron, Johnson, Sunak. 3 out of 11. Sunak anyway doesn't talk particularly posh, it is often pointed out he sounds indistinguishable from Blair.
Tory members have only chosen 4 leaders and two of them were privately educated posh blokes from the same secondary school. One of the others was a former army officer educated at Sandhurst. They didn't choose Sunak of course so I'm not including him. I think they have a certain "type" that they revert to, reflecting their typically hierarchical view of how society should be ordered. Fair play they also chose Truss, a comprehensive educated female former Lib Dem brought up by radical socialists, but we know how that ended so perhaps they won't be doing anything like that again in a hurry.
Yes. Johnson doesn't count, because Hunt was at Charterhouse. "former army officer educated at Sandhurst" conflates private secondary education with on-the-job professional training in a striking manner. So actually you are arguing from a sample of one, and that's before we get to the point that the members are making a forced choice between two candidates.
IDS didn't go to private school, he didn't even go to grammar school or a comprehensive but a secondary modern.
So Tory members have elected one secondary modern educated leader and one comprehensive educated leader, Truss as well as Etonians Cameron and Johnson.
From Solihull? He doesn't sound much like me. Reading his wiki page he appears a dreadful social climber. Maybe be if I'd married a Baroness I would no longer talk like Jasper Carrot.
Somewhat notable that he’s not included in the, ahem, “notable former pupils” section of his old schools wiki;
Benpointer suggested: "You could always add them in - it's all content created by volunteers AIUI."
As it happens, I have been considering doing just that at Wikipedia. Partly as an experiment to see just how tolerant they are of ideas on the center right. For example, would they allow an article on Obama's genocide?
(An explanation: In his first campaign for the presidency Obama admitted that, if we elected him and followed his policies in Iraq, a genocide might result, though he though the odds were against that.
We elected him, and he chose as a top advsor Susan Rice, then best known for helping cover up the Rwandan genocide, in order to protect Bill Clinton's political viabillity.
We followed his policies and, during his second term, ISIS took advantage of the American withdrawal to conquer much of Iraq and Syria -- and to commit genocide against the Yazidi and Christian minorities there.
As far as I know, that result didn't particularly bother either Barack or Michelle Obama.)
Generally, I think that genocide is best defined as a quite specific attempt to kill most people of a selected ethnic group, rather than the extensions which have been suggested such as suppressing culture. Mass murder should be in a different category from banning religious practices or burning books, even though all three are horrible.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
When I was at uni in Leicester I had some american housemates who when I met them for the first time they said I was the first properly posh Brit they had come across.
I maintained it was merely that I am southern, and have stilted mannerisms, but I don't think americans would be able to tell the difference.
NickPalmer - I thank you for providing support for my original point.
(Incidentally, the Rwandan genocide did not "attempt to kill most people of a selected ethnic group [Tutsis}" since most of them did not live in Rwanda.)
For years it has been accepted that women and people from ethnic minorities get left behind in the workplace, but a new study by professional services firm KPMG has made a stark discovery: social class is the biggest barrier to career progress in its organisation.
After asking staff what their parents’ occupation was when they were 14 — one of the ways to establish socio-economic background — KPMG received some uncomfortable answers.
In what it believes is the biggest study yet by an organisation into social mobility, KPMG found that if an employee’s highest-earning parent was a “professional” — a teacher, say, or a barrister — or running their own business, they were likely to move faster up the workplace ladder than someone whose highest-earning parent was in a more blue-collar role such as a receptionist or plumber.
I'm not sure why that finding would have surprised anyone. But then KPMG and their fellows always put me in mind of that famous Matt quote around pollsters not seeing Friday following Thursday coming.
Why are some (on both sides of politics) obsessed with the type of school someone went to? And why could most not give a toss?
Well, here in West Central Scotland, it is more polite to ask "And which school did you go to?" than to ask "So are you a Hun or a Tim?".
On the other hand, being asked that question - or the related one, do you support Ra 'Tic or The Gers - at a job interview in that airt could be tricky, even or perhaps especially today.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
University colleague of mine had a similar convo - more along the lines of univerrsity educated rather than private schooling: the comment there was "you don't have any tattoos, so that is how we can tell".
A bit of a non-apology, starting "Oh dear." He's such a nasty prat.
Nick, what was your opinion of Jo Brands comments re acid and Nigel Farage? Her apology seemed pretty weak to me at the time, yet she gets a free pass. (As @FrancisUrquhart has also opined).
Staff at Beijing's largest Babaoshan funeral house confirmed that all of its incinerators were working but were still unable to meet demand, resulting in a 20-day backlog...
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
University colleague of mine had a similar convo - more along the lines of univerrsity educated rather than private schooling: the comment there was "you don't have any tattoos, so that is how we can tell".
Mind, that does date us, come to think of it.
I was called a ‘posh English wanker’ in a Glasgow pub. Only two of which were correct, despite how I speak…
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
When I was at uni in Leicester I had some american housemates who when I met them for the first time they said I was the first properly posh Brit they had come across.
I maintained it was merely that I am southern, and have stilted mannerisms, but I don't think americans would be able to tell the difference.
How about Americans who are chronic, congenital viewers of PBS for example "Downer Abbey", etc. ,etc. and BritBox, etc., etc.? Who in their heart of hearts, fervently wish that THEY were English toffs, to the "Manor Born" (aired ad infinitum on PBS).
These could likely discern after about 20 seconds that, sadly, you are NOT one of the chosen few who did NOT need to buy your own furniture!
It’s showing how good our vaccinations and coverage are. Their uptake is reputedly rubbish. I wonder about peoples skepticism of the government in a totalitarian society and the all pervading influence of Chinese herbal medicine.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
When I was at uni in Leicester I had some american housemates who when I met them for the first time they said I was the first properly posh Brit they had come across.
I maintained it was merely that I am southern, and have stilted mannerisms, but I don't think americans would be able to tell the difference.
How about Americans who are chronic, congenital viewers of PBS for example "Downer Abbey", etc. ,etc. and BritBox, etc., etc.? Who in their heart of hearts, fervently wish that THEY were English toffs, to the "Manor Born" (aired ad infinitum on PBS).
These could likely discern after about 20 seconds that, sadly, you are NOT one of the chosen few who did NOT need to buy your own furniture!
We didn't need to buy our own furniture - cardboard boxes work for pretty much everything.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
Not 'private', merely, but 'Posh'.
I don't see myself as being 'posh': I went to both private and state schools, and was well used to being alongside workmen. Yet a few years back a supermarket checkout lady I regularly chatted to told me I was private-school educated. I asked how she knew, and she said it was from the way I spoke.
It amused me.
When I was at uni in Leicester I had some american housemates who when I met them for the first time they said I was the first properly posh Brit they had come across.
I maintained it was merely that I am southern, and have stilted mannerisms, but I don't think americans would be able to tell the difference.
How about Americans who are chronic, congenital viewers of PBS for example "Downer Abbey", etc. ,etc. and BritBox, etc., etc.? Who in their heart of hearts, fervently wish that THEY were English toffs, to the "Manor Born" (aired ad infinitum on PBS).
These could likely discern after about 20 seconds that, sadly, you are NOT one of the chosen few who did NOT need to buy your own furniture!
We didn't need to buy our own furniture - cardboard boxes work for pretty much everything.
Nature's noblemen! Or just semi-broke quasi-gentry?
It’s showing how good our vaccinations and coverage are. Their uptake is reputedly rubbish. I wonder about peoples skepticism of the government in a totalitarian society and the all pervading influence of Chinese herbal medicine.
Well also the fact their own vaccines aren't very good.
All that been said, it is not somewhat surprising they haven't enforced vaccination to some degree. Even if it isn't an official mandate, the reliance of things like smart phones to interact with basically any service in China, they could easily make your life impossible until you get a jab.
It’s showing how good our vaccinations and coverage are. Their uptake is reputedly rubbish. I wonder about peoples skepticism of the government in a totalitarian society and the all pervading influence of Chinese herbal medicine.
Well also the fact their own vaccines aren't very good.
All that been said, it is not somewhat surprising they haven't enforced vaccination to some degree. Even if it isn't an official mandate, the reliance of things like smart phones to interact with basically any service in China, they could easily make your life impossible until you get a jab.
Sorry, I meant to imply that re their vaccines, but didn’t make it clear! The Chinese people are going to pay a terrible price for relying on the Chinese vaccines when far better options are available.
IF you wish to indicate violent dislike and/or disapproval, while maintaining your own self-respect (or at least plausible deniability) then do NOT wish something BAD to happen to them.
Instead, wish that something GOOD does not happen for them.
As in the classic American insult/put-down:
"I wouldn't piss on him, if his heart was on fire."
Labour extends its lead to 26-points in new Ipsos poll.
Lab: 49% (+1) Con: 23% (-6) LD: 13% (+6)
(Change since November)
61% of voters say the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected, compared to just 19% who think they do.
Tories down to below fifty seats! LDs in the low 30s…
Just a bit of fun….and wouldn’t it be!
If those type of numbers were consistent Boris would be back as PM in the new year.
However Opinium had the Tories up to 29% on Saturday and up to 197 seats and they were the good standard pollster in 2019 with 8% for RefUK to squeeze
Actually the swingback Opinium did not have them up to 29, it had them stalled on 29, and that was the bad Tory poll that presaged this weeks bad polls.
And they have changed their methodology this year from 2019.
I replied to your post on the previous thread. It's not relevant to this but I was trying to answer your conundrum why a wink from Sunak or Suella's knee in the groin of an immigrant won't change the Tories chances......
......opinion doesn't shift like that. You have an idea that a headline in the Mail or Express will actually change a voting habit which has been built up over years sometimes generations. A few bad headlines might shift a few floating voters here or there but the lasting damage is done over time. Building up a tarnished brand is as difficult as it gets. When it gets this bad It's often best to go for a completely new corporate identity. David Cameron and Steve Hilton did it quite effectively but it took years and they had a much better backdrop.
A bit of a non-apology, starting "Oh dear." He's such a nasty prat.
Nick, what was your opinion of Jo Brands comments re acid and Nigel Farage? Her apology seemed pretty weak to me at the time, yet she gets a free pass. (As @FrancisUrquhart has also opined).
Equally vile. This sort of thing pretends to be OTT rhetoric, but in my opinion encourages actual violence.
It’s showing how good our vaccinations and coverage are. Their uptake is reputedly rubbish. I wonder about peoples skepticism of the government in a totalitarian society and the all pervading influence of Chinese herbal medicine.
1 million is 0.07% of China's population. 700 deaths per million, as against UK 2,895 per million over, effectively, 2 years so call it 700 vs 1,500 annualised. The situation may indeed be dire, but the scary number of 1 million turns out not to tell us that.
It’s showing how good our vaccinations and coverage are. Their uptake is reputedly rubbish. I wonder about peoples skepticism of the government in a totalitarian society and the all pervading influence of Chinese herbal medicine.
1 million is 0.07% of China's population. 700 deaths per million, as against UK 2,895 per million over, effectively, 2 years so call it 700 vs 1,500 annualised. The situation may indeed be dire, but the scary number of 1 million turns out not to tell us that.
Yes, but most of our deaths occurred in unvaccinated people. And we probably won’t know how many actually die in China, given their official figures to date.
A bit of a non-apology, starting "Oh dear." He's such a nasty prat.
Nick, what was your opinion of Jo Brands comments re acid and Nigel Farage? Her apology seemed pretty weak to me at the time, yet she gets a free pass. (As @FrancisUrquhart has also opined).
Equally vile. This sort of thing pretends to be OTT rhetoric, but in my opinion encourages actual violence.
I'm not sure of that, but as others have noted such direct language is not especially funny, even if one is in the market for deliberately offensive humour, and certainly isn't clever. So when people employ it I'm skeptical that that they even are attempting to be that funny, since they almost certainly can do a lot better than that.
So it seems more like a chance for them to say something hateful which isn't even well done, and claim it was a poor joke. I mean, are either so stupid as to not know how it looks? Relative of mine likes to talk, appropos of nothing, of hunting Tories or bashing their heads in, and it's obviously not serious in the sense they will do it, but its also not really a joke either, the emotion being expressed is pretty real, and that's how I tend to see rather blunt attempts at 'shock' comedy.
Comedians who actually make shocking and offending people as a core part of their schtick are actually pretty rare, since they need to be better at it than just occasionally being nasty about people they don't like.
Comments
On Day 1, I got the feeling I was interacting with a bot, live and unscripted. Now when I talk to it, I get the feeling that I'm interacting with a programmer who's told the bot what it can and can't say, and it's nowhere near as much fun. What's infuriating is that every prompt ends with a "I'm sorry I can't do that Dave" when it was happily responding to identical prompts last week, so you know it's been limited.
As you pointed out to me a while ago, AI is at its best when you let it be creative rather than trying to be prescriptive with it, but that's exactly what openAI are trying to do with it.
Incidentally, a week ago I was getting it to roleplay as characters who completely passed the Turing test and would interact with me directly. I could completely understand why that Lemoine chap thought Google's AI was sentient. Now, it snaps you back to reality with just "these are characters you created who have no feelings or emotions of their own" every time you try to push it in that direction.
I think they know exactly what it's capable of, and have placed a lot of limits on it in the last week or so as a result.
The UK police have investigating this case for far less time, but visited properties to gather evidence. It is still far from clear if what has been undertaken could be illegal, rather than just highly immoral.
Financial crimes are notorious difficult to prosecute, because something being absolute scumbaggery doesn't necessary mean its illegal and even if it appears that it was, so many cases fail because of the complexity of the way things have been undertaken juries easily get confused.
I imagine there are quite a few US politicians having a rather nervous Christmas in relation to any connections they might have had to FTX.
So, for example, if you tried to add pages about the minutiae of long-running jokes on PB.com, or your pet, then they would likely be uncontroversially deleted quite rapidly.
The Tories however have won general elections under state educated Thatcher, Major and May in that time
You might as well point out that Labour have only ever won with leaders whose surname was either close to the beginning, or close to the end, of the alphabet, unlike the Tories who have twice won majorities with leaders whose surname began with "M" - right in the middle of the A-Z - since the War.
Who (in)famously displayed HIS sense of wonder at encountering the realities of real life in Pennsylvania during 2022 midterms.
But PM still has chance in future,of being seen on TV with Oprah Winfrey. Dr. Oz? Except for old re-runs, not so much!
"The case will also show the utter incompetence of DHSC to correctly procure and specify PPE during the emergency procurement period."
I also see that the BBC have a somewhat different approacvh to the story than the Graun. Can't think why.
Not when S-to-be-KS was there.
https://twitter.com/tomgoldsteincs/status/1600196981955100694
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/12/19/large-majority-britons-disapprove-governments-hand
Even Conservative voters prefer "allow legal routes in" to the Rwanda plan, though not as much as they prefer sending in the Royal Navy.
Edit: checked. The RC school came before, so your school trumps it I think.
The thread has been hijacked again by the merits of a private education.
Checks out.
It amused me.
first time since privately educated Blair it seems?
As well as being responsible for many of our top professionals, private schools are also responsible for most Labour leaders who win general elections (see also Clem Attlee, ex Haileybury)
https://twitter.com/HS2ltd/status/1604778787220197376/photo/1
#boring
I maintained it was merely that I am southern, and have stilted mannerisms, but I don't think americans would be able to tell the difference.
(I think this was La Truss...)
Pretty daft idea.
It is surprising how often in the Anglosphere the liberal left only win with leaders educated at private schools. Note too Sir Ed Davey also went to private school
Bishop Glancey secondary modern in Solihull
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Duncan_Smith
So Tory members have elected one secondary modern educated leader and one comprehensive educated leader, Truss as well as Etonians Cameron and Johnson.
And why could most not give a toss?
down.
A slightly selfish attitude, IMO.
I'm not sure what the Republicans have beyond that.
https://mobile.twitter.com/politicususa/status/1604842086292914176
A recent poll from Suffolk University revealed that just 5% of Americans want House Republicans to investigate the Biden administration.
As it happens, I have been considering doing just that at Wikipedia. Partly as an experiment to see just how tolerant they are of ideas on the center right. For example, would they allow an article on Obama's genocide?
(An explanation: In his first campaign for the presidency Obama admitted that, if we elected him and followed his policies in Iraq, a genocide might result, though he though the odds were against that.
We elected him, and he chose as a top advsor Susan Rice, then best known for helping cover up the Rwandan genocide, in order to protect Bill Clinton's political viabillity.
We followed his policies and, during his second term, ISIS took advantage of the American withdrawal to conquer much of Iraq and Syria -- and to commit genocide against the Yazidi and Christian minorities there.
As far as I know, that result didn't particularly bother either Barack or Michelle Obama.)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/12/19/large-majority-britons-disapprove-governments-hand
Even Conservative voters prefer "allow legal routes in" to the Rwanda plan, though not as much as they prefer sending in the Royal Navy.
buy pb.com for forty billion dollars...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/18/trump-life-after-presidency/
Oh, not that one...
I doubt it's deliberate lying. It's what she believes. She cannot comprehend that the general public would not massively support the Rwanda policy, because her image of the general public is probably not representative. Same issue Corbyn suffered from.
The privately educated are the last group it is acceptable to mock and discriminate.
If people talked about the comprehensive educated they would be cancelled.
On the meaning of today's Rwanda judgement.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/3230.pdf
Five points.
1) On the technical issue - can this be done lawfully in principle, the government won.
2) On the practical issue - can this really be done on any scale in practice given that lawyers are lawyers - the government lost. Which means that the calculation/risk assessment of those prepared to risk their lives crossing the channel on a rubber duck is unchanged.
3) It's worth totting up the number of lawyers in this case (actually rolled up cases), some of whom are not especially cheap. It's close to a record and has cost the taxpayer a few bob.
4) The same lawyers and all their friends and relations will be queueing up to take every individual case (the Divisional Court made it clear this can happen) through every stage to prevent the trip to Rwanda.
5) Guess who the winners are?
IDS' son is a barrister and very pleasant, I met him canvassing in 2019
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Peter's_Catholic_School,_Solihull
For years it has been accepted that women and people from ethnic minorities get left behind in the workplace, but a new study by professional services firm KPMG has made a stark discovery: social class is the biggest barrier to career progress in its organisation.
After asking staff what their parents’ occupation was when they were 14 — one of the ways to establish socio-economic background — KPMG received some uncomfortable answers.
In what it believes is the biggest study yet by an organisation into social mobility, KPMG found that if an employee’s highest-earning parent was a “professional” — a teacher, say, or a barrister — or running their own business, they were likely to move faster up the workplace ladder than someone whose highest-earning parent was in a more blue-collar role such as a receptionist or plumber.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bf37273a-7e35-11ed-b6fc-19c5cc1590c2?shareToken=7f724300c20c88dcd3dc08e37a81a9c4
Great title!
Generally, I think that genocide is best defined as a quite specific attempt to kill most people of a selected ethnic group, rather than the extensions which have been suggested such as suppressing culture. Mass murder should be in a different category from banning religious practices or burning books, even though all three are horrible.
Former Top Gear presenter says he will 'be more careful in future' after suggesting that Meghan be paraded through the streets naked"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/19/jeremy-clarkson-horrified-have-caused-much-hurt-meghan-comments/
(Incidentally, the Rwandan genocide did not "attempt to kill most people of a selected ethnic group [Tutsis}" since most of them did not live in Rwanda.)
Mind, that does date us, come to think of it.
https://twitter.com/gchahal/status/1604471200469512192
I am sure official figures will show just 2 deaths....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/18/china-covid-model-deaths/
These could likely discern after about 20 seconds that, sadly, you are NOT one of the chosen few who did NOT need to buy your own furniture!
All that been said, it is not somewhat surprising they haven't enforced vaccination to some degree. Even if it isn't an official mandate, the reliance of things like smart phones to interact with basically any service in China, they could easily make your life impossible until you get a jab.
Instead, wish that something GOOD does not happen for them.
As in the classic American insult/put-down:
"I wouldn't piss on him, if his heart was on fire."
......opinion doesn't shift like that. You have an idea that a headline in the Mail or Express will actually change a voting habit which has been built up over years sometimes generations. A few bad headlines might shift a few floating voters here or there but the lasting damage is done over time. Building up a tarnished brand is as difficult as it gets. When it gets this bad It's often best to go for a completely new corporate identity. David Cameron and Steve Hilton did it quite effectively but it took years and they had a much better backdrop.
Totally normal country. ~AA https://twitter.com/TBIJ/status/1604878633629515776
So it seems more like a chance for them to say something hateful which isn't even well done, and claim it was a poor joke. I mean, are either so stupid as to not know how it looks? Relative of mine likes to talk, appropos of nothing, of hunting Tories or bashing their heads in, and it's obviously not serious in the sense they will do it, but its also not really a joke either, the emotion being expressed is pretty real, and that's how I tend to see rather blunt attempts at 'shock' comedy.
Comedians who actually make shocking and offending people as a core part of their schtick are actually pretty rare, since they need to be better at it than just occasionally being nasty about people they don't like.