2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Whilst I don't doubt there will be some swingback before the GE, I can't see Labour not getting a stonking majority.
However: the tweet above shows an issue that has been mentioned on here before: Labour's lead is not down to any brilliance on Labour's or Starmer's part: it's down to an implosion by the Conservatives.
Between 1992 and 1997, Major's Conservative party suffered a similar (worse?) implosion. And Blair was there not just to capitalise on it; but to give a positive vision with a smiley face. Blair was likeable. Blair was unthreatening.
Starmer is not Blair; and whilst that *might* be morally good, Blair was an electoral asset. Starmer needs to be more like Blair to seal the deal.
It's at times like this that I wish we had PB archives going back to the mid 90s.
My memory of the time is that a lot of the current tropes are echoes of what was said then- Blair's just an Islington Lawyer, Prescott is a dangerous fool, the mask will slip, economic growth will see the Conservatives home.
And whilst some of Labour's poll leads were more spectacular then, that was mostly with pollsters that hadn't taken the "shy Tory" lesson of 1992 to heart. ICM/Guardian (gold standard of the time) were always less emphatic. Across 1995, their ratings were in the range Cons 24-32, Lab 53-47. That's more like the current polling range than unlike it.
Swingback is a real thing, sure. But so is "we just want you to go away, even if we're not sure about the other lot". And whilst anything can happen in the future, it's going to require something, probably something big, to shift the parties off the path they are currently on. What?
I’m not an especial Keir fan, and I accept that he is “no Blair”, but the PB Tories have clearly forgotten that there remained considerable skepticism about Blair throughout.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Whilst I don't doubt there will be some swingback before the GE, I can't see Labour not getting a stonking majority.
However: the tweet above shows an issue that has been mentioned on here before: Labour's lead is not down to any brilliance on Labour's or Starmer's part: it's down to an implosion by the Conservatives.
Between 1992 and 1997, Major's Conservative party suffered a similar (worse?) implosion. And Blair was there not just to capitalise on it; but to give a positive vision with a smiley face. Blair was likeable. Blair was unthreatening.
Starmer is not Blair; and whilst that *might* be morally good, Blair was an electoral asset. Starmer needs to be more like Blair to seal the deal.
It's at times like this that I wish we had PB archives going back to the mid 90s.
My memory of the time is that a lot of the current tropes are echoes of what was said then- Blair's just an Islington Lawyer, Prescott is a dangerous fool, the mask will slip, economic growth will see the Conservatives home.
And whilst some of Labour's poll leads were more spectacular then, that was mostly with pollsters that hadn't taken the "shy Tory" lesson of 1992 to heart. ICM/Guardian (gold standard of the time) were always less emphatic. Across 1995, their ratings were in the range Cons 24-32, Lab 53-47. That's more like the current polling range than unlike it.
Swingback is a real thing, sure. But so is "we just want you to go away, even if we're not sure about the other lot". And whilst anything can happen in the future, it's going to require something, probably something big, to shift the parties off the path they are currently on. What?
FWIW, I don’t believe the Tories will win the next election. Too much has passed under the bridge, the Truss debacle being the main one, to give them any real way back.
But I don’t think we’re in 1997 territory.
I think Starmer will pretty much win by default (and I hope he does), absent a cataclysmic event, but he is yet to face proper scrutiny of the lead up to a GE campaign and the campaign itself. Under the white hot scrutiny that will come, I think his lack of charisma and lack of a “big idea” is going to cause him issues. Blair had policies in spades that people saw and liked. Starmer has some tweaks to the tax system and a vague pledge to improve public services. They don’t compare.
One thing Blair didn’t have in the run up to 1997 was “policies in spades”. He had a very thin and basic set of pledges.
Labour has quite a lot of policy, including in tax, law and order, devolution and the constitution, environment and energy, and foreign affairs. They are still rather lacking on education, EU relationship, health and social care. But so frankly are the actual current government.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Whilst I don't doubt there will be some swingback before the GE, I can't see Labour not getting a stonking majority.
However: the tweet above shows an issue that has been mentioned on here before: Labour's lead is not down to any brilliance on Labour's or Starmer's part: it's down to an implosion by the Conservatives.
Between 1992 and 1997, Major's Conservative party suffered a similar (worse?) implosion. And Blair was there not just to capitalise on it; but to give a positive vision with a smiley face. Blair was likeable. Blair was unthreatening.
Starmer is not Blair; and whilst that *might* be morally good, Blair was an electoral asset. Starmer needs to be more like Blair to seal the deal.
It's at times like this that I wish we had PB archives going back to the mid 90s.
My memory of the time is that a lot of the current tropes are echoes of what was said then- Blair's just an Islington Lawyer, Prescott is a dangerous fool, the mask will slip, economic growth will see the Conservatives home.
And whilst some of Labour's poll leads were more spectacular then, that was mostly with pollsters that hadn't taken the "shy Tory" lesson of 1992 to heart. ICM/Guardian (gold standard of the time) were always less emphatic. Across 1995, their ratings were in the range Cons 24-32, Lab 53-47. That's more like the current polling range than unlike it.
Swingback is a real thing, sure. But so is "we just want you to go away, even if we're not sure about the other lot". And whilst anything can happen in the future, it's going to require something, probably something big, to shift the parties off the path they are currently on. What?
FWIW, I don’t believe the Tories will win the next election. Too much has passed under the bridge, the Truss debacle being the main one, to give them any real way back.
But I don’t think we’re in 1997 territory.
I think Starmer will pretty much win by default (and I hope he does), absent a cataclysmic event, but he is yet to face proper scrutiny of the lead up to a GE campaign and the campaign itself. Under the white hot scrutiny that will come, I think his lack of charisma and lack of a “big idea” is going to cause him issues. Blair had policies in spades that people saw and liked. Starmer has some tweaks to the tax system and a vague pledge to improve public services. They don’t compare.
Did Blair really have "policies in spades that people saw and liked"? He was elected on a promise of sticking to Tory spending plans, and the famous pledge card was extremely modest in its ambition. Indeed, lack of ambition and detail was a common criticism of the time.
Blair detoxified Labour in opposition: which was exactly what the 'Clause 4 moment' was about. That alone recast what Labour was about and for, and was a key change to make them electable.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
But the UK is a racist, oppressive, and nepotistic country, according to many on the left. Might they be wrong?
Genuinely, it’s been brilliant to see in recent years people of all genders, colours, and creeds, in senior positions in government. The UK is one of the best places in the world for this, despite what detractors might say.
The UK, Scotland, and London are ruled by non white people, from three different parties.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
But the UK is a racist, oppressive, and nepotistic country, according to many on the left. Might they be wrong?
Genuinely, it’s been brilliant to see in recent years people of all genders, colours, and creeds, in senior positions in government. The UK is one of the best places in the world for this, despite what detractors might say.
The UK, Scotland, and London are ruled by non white people, from three different parties.
Take a bow the UK.
It is characteristically British that, actually, nobody cares.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Whilst I don't doubt there will be some swingback before the GE, I can't see Labour not getting a stonking majority.
However: the tweet above shows an issue that has been mentioned on here before: Labour's lead is not down to any brilliance on Labour's or Starmer's part: it's down to an implosion by the Conservatives.
Between 1992 and 1997, Major's Conservative party suffered a similar (worse?) implosion. And Blair was there not just to capitalise on it; but to give a positive vision with a smiley face. Blair was likeable. Blair was unthreatening.
Starmer is not Blair; and whilst that *might* be morally good, Blair was an electoral asset. Starmer needs to be more like Blair to seal the deal.
It's at times like this that I wish we had PB archives going back to the mid 90s.
My memory of the time is that a lot of the current tropes are echoes of what was said then- Blair's just an Islington Lawyer, Prescott is a dangerous fool, the mask will slip, economic growth will see the Conservatives home.
And whilst some of Labour's poll leads were more spectacular then, that was mostly with pollsters that hadn't taken the "shy Tory" lesson of 1992 to heart. ICM/Guardian (gold standard of the time) were always less emphatic. Across 1995, their ratings were in the range Cons 24-32, Lab 53-47. That's more like the current polling range than unlike it.
Swingback is a real thing, sure. But so is "we just want you to go away, even if we're not sure about the other lot". And whilst anything can happen in the future, it's going to require something, probably something big, to shift the parties off the path they are currently on. What?
FWIW, I don’t believe the Tories will win the next election. Too much has passed under the bridge, the Truss debacle being the main one, to give them any real way back.
But I don’t think we’re in 1997 territory.
I think Starmer will pretty much win by default (and I hope he does), absent a cataclysmic event, but he is yet to face proper scrutiny of the lead up to a GE campaign and the campaign itself. Under the white hot scrutiny that will come, I think his lack of charisma and lack of a “big idea” is going to cause him issues. Blair had policies in spades that people saw and liked. Starmer has some tweaks to the tax system and a vague pledge to improve public services. They don’t compare.
Did Blair really have "policies in spades that people saw and liked"? He was elected on a promise of sticking to Tory spending plans, and the famous pledge card was extremely modest in its ambition. Indeed, lack of ambition and detail was a common criticism of the time.
Blair detoxified Labour in opposition: which was exactly what the 'Clause 4 moment' was about. That alone recast what Labour was about and for, and was a key change to make them electable.
I agree, but it did mean he went into the election promising a change of management - the policy programme was pretty unambitious (the Blair instinct was "underpromise, overdeliver").
Starmer thinks, and is to an extent right to think, he's had his "Clause 4 moment" with Corbyn's removal. It's certainly a very visible line that has been drawn under that period.
Buckingham Palace has said that it is co-operating with an independent study exploring the relationship between the British monarchy and the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The Palace said King Charles takes the issue "profoundly seriously".
The wokeness of Charles and William is great for the monarchy.
Staunch supporters of the monarchy love wokeism.
I think Charles will make an excellent job of this, probably far better than EII would have.
But apparently it's impossible to make an excellent job of this slavery business according to many on PB.
Bit simplistic. There are lots of issues around the idea of reparations for slavery. Who, how much are just the start. Then there is why is the caribbean slave trade different from other slavery? How far back does one go? Do we go after tribal leaders in Africa who sold slaves to the Europeans?
Its not a simple question.
No issues at all with increasing education about the issues. That could have been done with Colston in Bristol. History is complex. People bought and sold slaves. It was legal at the time. We do not regard that as fitting our moral compass now. In 100 years we may regard eating meat as abhorrent (some already do). Will we tear down statues of people who ate meat?*
*Probably.
Don't forget that KC3 isn't just our King, but also the HoS of a number of Carribean countries. I wouldn't take the whataboutary of slaves in Ancient Rome to those Islands and expect a sympathetic ear. Neither would I take it to the former slave exporting Commonwealth countries of Africa.
This penitance isn't just for a domestic audience.
We've been assured many times that all the Caribbean countries will be going republican. Most have had plans for such for a long time.
Not saying the penitance might not still be for more than a domestic audience, but I imagine King Sausage Fingers is pretty realistic about how long he will be head of state in any part of the Caribbean.
There’s an obvious conflict of interest in being Head of State of different countries whose interests clash.
This is KCIII being a cuck.
I thought he'd said he understood he wouldn't take any political positions when he took the throne, and he's just taken one.
The Queen wouldn't have made the same mistake.
Everything is political on some level. Knighting Captain Tom could've be interpreted as a rebuke to libertarian detractors of the NHS.
There shouldn't be anything particularly controversial about saying that the British Crown profited from the slave trade. It's a well documented matter of history that it all started even before the Union of the Crowns.
Which is fair, but what happens next? Cries for compensation? Already happening. Education about history is great, I’m less convinced we should be righting the wrongs from 300 years ago by paying money today.
Putting it crudely, I think it depends how much those demanding reparations are after, and from whom. There's a case for requesting that the wealthy descendants of those who profited from slave trading might wish to part with some of the resultant loot. Massive sums extracted directly from the general taxpayer are a different matter. I've written about this before: telling a single mum who's trying to raise a couple of kiddies on a minimum wage crap job and derisory social security that some of her taxes now have to go to pay off angry people in the West Indies - because their ancestors were slaves two centuries ago, and the suffering of the slaves is the reason why she is "rich" - isn't particularly equitable and won't go down too well.
Especially when said single mother’s ancestors were probably coughing their lungs out in a damp hovel, two hundred years ago.
There are many things I wish had not happened in the past, chattel slavery very much being one of them.
But “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on. Not all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.”
This all builds up to a pattern of Charles having little confidence in himself or as his role as a monarch, which makes him a feast for anyone who wants to have a bite.
It won't help his confidence, their respect, or this country, and they will always come back asking for more.
I disagree there. I think Charles' willingness to open the question, and refusal to supply easy, simple answers, is a sign of strength.
The press may not like it, but then it's not for them.
Charles is actually a bit of a problem for the Republican movement. Quite a reasonable chap on stuff like this, then you have all the green stuff.
He's a benefit for the Republican movement if he picks side because he will undermine his base of natural supporters.
He simply doesn't have the "recollections may vary" skill of HMQEII, which we are seeing now.
Well, that is the lottery of Monarchy, you have to take what you get. Elizabeth or Margaret? Edward VIII or George VI? Charles, or Andrew, or Anne? William or Harry? It is luck of the draw, and sooner or later draw a dud, though opinions will vary on who is the dud.
In my mind reparations are best in the form of apology for wrongs committed, even if these were by the standards of the times, and restitution of traceable artefacts such as the Benin bronzes etc. Something to be said for easier visas for young Commonwealth citizens to study and work here too.
You however want reparations paid by people that were little more than slaves themselves....you cite mill workers and cotton...yes they could not take that job but also likely if they didn't they wouldn't have an income and starve.
When the choice is do this or starve is it so much difference between that and slavery?
Those mill workers you cite are all long dead surely? They're not going to pay the reparations.
Here's a suggestion: introduce a wealth tax and use that in part to pay some reparations.
I don't believe I have any moral obligation to pay a penny to the descendants of slaves.
Nor do I.
But I do believe Britain as a nation has some moral obligations.
If countries have national moral obligations do they also have national characters? As that idea has been poo poohed previously.
In a cold way there are no obligations on any country, but in a practical sense as well as any moral I think it is only right for countries to try to right by one another wherever possible, just as they should try to do right within their borders. But I just find the supposed simplicity of reparations to be a bit suspect given for most people we are not in a position to precisely calculate some level of harm their antecendents have suffered, before you even get onto moralities or practicalities of how and who to pay etc. Address the ongoing impacts of historic wrongs? Absolutely. But is that really the way to address those impacts? I'm not persuaded.
I think the core of the argument for a reparations approach is that if you look at the last half millennium or so of world history then slavery and colonialism are (arguably) the essential fulcrum that turned history so that we now have such a clear and large divide between a wealthy "developed" world and a poor "impoverished" world. It provided the essential surplus capital to pay for the industrial revolution.
Pretty clearly the "development" or "aid" approach of the last half century or so hasn't done much to erase this historical divide. So perhaps it's time for a change and an attempt at a new, perhaps more simplistic approach, of providing reparations without worrying too much about calculating it all exactly. Great harm was done to a great many people and it affects a great many people to this day, and fairly obviously we haven't done enough to redress the harm caused.
That's the core of the argument but it's complete bollocks.
The industrial revolution would have happened, and the development of new technology to exploit new domestic energy sources here, leading to huge economic development, with or without slavery also being in place elsewhere in the world at the time. It was and is entirely agnostic to it, particularly since the whole point of it is that you can do more with less labour, and so the business case writes itself. It hinges on political and legal stability and having a sophisticated financing system. Not whether you have free or enslaved labour, the latter being more unproductive anyway...
That's half true. In reality early industrialisation - notably the invention of the cotton gin - drove a large increase in plantation slavery, and the brutality of the system. As you note, industrialised outputs rose massively - while it was not possible to mechanise cotton production.
It's not something I've ever looked into before, but why was cotton production so hard to mechanise, and therefore required large amounts of people to grow?
From that, it sounds like there were many tasks that needed doing: from weeding, and thinning, preparing the soil and spraying. Whilst some machines were developed, as long as they needed people around to pick the cotton, mechanisation of the earlier tasks was also less economic.
I do wonder if the lack of mechanisation was not down to technology, but to the fact the owners realised the effects mechanisation would have, as stated above? And if it works, why fix it?
No, it was far more likely down to the lack of the internal combustion engine a hundred years earlier.
As the story you link indicates, the development of a practical machine for picking cotton was a long drawn out process even in the twentieth century.
There was no IC engine for many jobs during the early industrial revolution - yet people still managed to do stuff. Steam engines were introduced onto farms before 1800, and portable ones that could be moved at around the time the practical locomotive was created.
I know the deep south was much less industrially-developed compared to the northern states, but if there had been a will, there would have been a way to at least do some changes - and the fact it was only done in the 1930s probably wasn't down to some magical new enabler being required.
My *guess* - and it is no more than that for a short amount of reading - is the following. Such technological developments to improve productivity require massive amounts of capital. In many industries, the owners saw the advantages and strove for new technology - and those that did not, often succumbed to competitive pressures.
But in the south, increased productivity would throw loads of slaves out of work, which would lead to social changes. The owners in other industries and countries did not care much about the social changes (hence luddites); but in the south the system was based around slavery. What would happen if the slaves had no work? There was therefore a massive disincentive to improving productivity via machines.
P'haps.
Unemployed slaves would just have been left to starve.
I don’t think the Planters or their poorer supporters, were primarily concerned about economics.
They actually wanted to retain slavery. Lincoln was still offering to buy them out, until very late in the war.
Jefferson would probably have accepted the deal that the British government offered slave owners in 1833. He knew perfectly well slavery was wrong, (his writings make that plain) but slavery gave him a very high standard of living, as well as the hot young body of Sally Hemming.
But, opinion had moved on by 1860.
There was also the fact that cheap manual labour represented a barrier to investment in mechanisation.
A frequent comment from Northerners visiting the South was how “unimproved” it was. The Slavocracy was, also, actively against investment and change. Except investment in slaves, of course.
Sounds like Sir Stuart Rose, bemoaning the increase in wages for unskilled labour if the UK leaves the EU.
Rose was wrong of course, as Britain has left the EU and wages have not kept pace with inflation.
At the bottom they have. Lots of hospitality industry now offering £12-13, whereas they were all very much min wage four years ago. A lot of people changed jobs during the pandemic too, moving out of MW into better paid employment.
His concern was that *employers* would no longer be able to rely on a cheap labour pool for shelf stacking, driving and the like.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
Whoever thought that AI might go totally rogue, and have real-world consequences for innocent people?
“A law professor has been falsely accused of sexually harassing a student in reputation-ruining misinformation shared by ChatGPT, it has been alleged.
“US criminal defence attorney, Jonathan Turley, has raised fears over the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) after being wrongly accused of unwanted sexual behaviour on an Alaska trip he never went on.
“To jump to this conclusion, it was claimed that ChatGPT relied on a cited Washington Post article that had never been written, quoting a statement that was never issued by the newspaper.
“The chatbot also believed that the 'incident' took place while the professor was working in a faculty he had never been employed in.”
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
But the UK is a racist, oppressive, and nepotistic country, according to many on the left. Might they be wrong?
Genuinely, it’s been brilliant to see in recent years people of all genders, colours, and creeds, in senior positions in government. The UK is one of the best places in the world for this, despite what detractors might say.
The British class system always had an element of allowing *some* of the talented to rise. The Victorian Army and Navy were both extremely snobbish, but in both men from humble origins occasionally rise to high rank.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
They've only done this because they realise it looks bad to remain in post. They could've issued a qualified report (question, was it qualified in 2021 year end I wonder?) if they thought there was some inpropiety going on.
Indeed, the whole point of an audit is to issue a report, good or bad. If you will never issue a bad one, because of the publicity, then what's the point of an audit report anyway?
We’ve previously discussed the problem of audits here. One problem is that, if the slightest question is raised, that is seen as torpedoing the client.
Whoever thought that AI might go totally rogue, and have real-world consequences for innocent people?
“A law professor has been falsely accused of sexually harassing a student in reputation-ruining misinformation shared by ChatGPT, it has been alleged.
“US criminal defence attorney, Jonathan Turley, has raised fears over the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) after being wrongly accused of unwanted sexual behaviour on an Alaska trip he never went on.
“To jump to this conclusion, it was claimed that ChatGPT relied on a cited Washington Post article that had never been written, quoting a statement that was never issued by the newspaper.
“The chatbot also believed that the 'incident' took place while the professor was working in a faculty he had never been employed in.”
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
Whoever thought that AI might go totally rogue, and have real-world consequences for innocent people?
“A law professor has been falsely accused of sexually harassing a student in reputation-ruining misinformation shared by ChatGPT, it has been alleged.
“US criminal defence attorney, Jonathan Turley, has raised fears over the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) after being wrongly accused of unwanted sexual behaviour on an Alaska trip he never went on.
“To jump to this conclusion, it was claimed that ChatGPT relied on a cited Washington Post article that had never been written, quoting a statement that was never issued by the newspaper.
“The chatbot also believed that the 'incident' took place while the professor was working in a faculty he had never been employed in.”
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Whilst I don't doubt there will be some swingback before the GE, I can't see Labour not getting a stonking majority.
However: the tweet above shows an issue that has been mentioned on here before: Labour's lead is not down to any brilliance on Labour's or Starmer's part: it's down to an implosion by the Conservatives.
Between 1992 and 1997, Major's Conservative party suffered a similar (worse?) implosion. And Blair was there not just to capitalise on it; but to give a positive vision with a smiley face. Blair was likeable. Blair was unthreatening.
Starmer is not Blair; and whilst that *might* be morally good, Blair was an electoral asset. Starmer needs to be more like Blair to seal the deal.
Whatever you think about Blair, he was able to embody a sense of renewal in a way that Starmer cannot.
He wouldn't have been able to in the current climate. The country's in a mess, no easy solutions, and after Boris Johnson there'd be only one popular response to another gurning wafflebucket pretending otherwise - oh do fuck off.
Before we get all 'inspired' again we need to stop doing bad and stupid things. SKS is a good fit for this imo. In this sense it really is 'cometh the hour cometh the man'. I'm very confident of a Labour win at the GE and I think a big majority is more likely than no majority.
So there, William. That's that said and done. Back to the Masters golf now and my Big Chocolate Egg.
Scenario 1: Your bank balance is £1m, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £900k.
Scenario 2: Your bank balance is £100k, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £0.
Is the ringfenced money still there? Legally and mathematically, I can't see the difference between the two scenarios. But I bet it feels different to the people who donated to the ringfenced fund.
Ringfenced money really should be in a separate account.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
Could this happen to somebody who is white and not of an immigrant family?
Talking of social mobility, my family has been researching our past. Turns out in the 12th century our direct ancestors owned an enormous estate near Helford, Cornwall, on Frenchman’s Creek (one of the most beautiful places in the UK, if not all of Europe). We owned lots of early tin mines, smelting houses etc. The Manor House is still there but it’s Regency architecture, as the medieval castellated mansion burned down
30 generations later, direct descendants of these people were living in slums a few miles away. One family had eight kids where every single male child over ten years old was a tin miner. Aged 11 etc. The girls were bal maidens breaking rocks. They worked (without realising it) in the mines their ancestors used to own. The next generation was even poorer and relied on “alms” to survive. My great great grandparents
Social mobility can be downwards as well as upwards. Ours was a slow but stark decline
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
Mid/late 1980s: it's fashionable to be a yuppie, so we'll all be yuppies for the next 5/10 years. Mid/late 1990s: it's fashionable to be a Blairite, so we'll all be Blairites for the next 5/10 years.
Discussion on Biden’s security, when he speaks in the Dáil next week. They have a strict no guns rule, for the obvious reasons. The Secret Service are not amused.
Scenario 1: Your bank balance is £1m, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £900k.
Scenario 2: Your bank balance is £100k, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £0.
Is the ringfenced money still there? Legally and mathematically, I can't see the difference between the two scenarios. But I bet it feels different to the people who donated to the ringfenced fund.
Ringfenced money really should be in a separate account.
They needed the equivalent of a client account for this money.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh could help them on the best practice on that.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
Could this happen to somebody who is white and not of an immigrant family?
Talking of social mobility, my family has been researching our past. Turns out in the 12th century our direct ancestors owned an enormous estate near Helford, Cornwall, on Frenchman’s Creek (one of the most beautiful places in the UK, if not all of Europe). We owned lots of early tin mines, smelting houses etc. The Manor House is still there but it’s Regency architecture, as the medieval castellated mansion burned down
30 generations later, direct descendants of these people were living in slums a few miles away. One family had eight kids where every single male child over ten years old was a tin miner. Aged 11 etc. The girls were bal maidens breaking rocks. They worked (without realising it) in the mines their ancestors used to own. The next generation was even poorer and relied on “alms” to survive. My great great grandparents
Social mobility can be downwards as well as upwards. Ours was a slow but stark decline
The Lancashire saying was “clogs to clogs in three generations”!
I can happily report that my dads funeral passed off seamlessly. Good turnout. 50 people? Very sweet service. Beautiful old church by the Tresillian river. The sun shone. Lots of booze and laughter after. And, most importantly, I didn’t blub during my eulogy. Just one well timed, tiny, manly choke of emotion
I did drink 3 glasses of Nyetimber rose beforehand
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
But the UK is a racist, oppressive, and nepotistic country, according to many on the left. Might they be wrong?
Genuinely, it’s been brilliant to see in recent years people of all genders, colours, and creeds, in senior positions in government. The UK is one of the best places in the world for this, despite what detractors might say.
The UK, Scotland, and London are ruled by non white people, from three different parties.
Take a bow the UK.
It is characteristically British that, actually, nobody cares.
It is even worse than that. Despite this astonishing record many of us constantly beat ourselves up about how terrible we all are.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
But the UK is a racist, oppressive, and nepotistic country, according to many on the left. Might they be wrong?
Genuinely, it’s been brilliant to see in recent years people of all genders, colours, and creeds, in senior positions in government. The UK is one of the best places in the world for this, despite what detractors might say.
The UK, Scotland, and London are ruled by non white people, from three different parties.
Take a bow the UK.
It is characteristically British that, actually, nobody cares.
It is even worse than that. Despite this astonishing record many of us constantly beat ourselves up about how terrible we all are.
I get very bored by identity politics. As far as I’m concerned, much of it is convenient obfuscation to mask underlying and under-discussed class inequality.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
Move in with your new wife and sell your now unneeded house, is one obvious possibility that fits the facts?
Scenario 1: Your bank balance is £1m, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £900k.
Scenario 2: Your bank balance is £100k, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £0.
Is the ringfenced money still there? Legally and mathematically, I can't see the difference between the two scenarios. But I bet it feels different to the people who donated to the ringfenced fund.
Ringfenced money really should be in a separate account.
I am not a qualified accountant but the answer could, and normally would, be that the accounts would continue to show the liability to the fund. So there should have been, on your scenario 2, an entry in the accounts showing that there was an obligation to this Independence fund of £600k so that the balance overall all would not be £0 but £(600K). There is nothing like this in the SNP accounts at any point.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
Does he gamble? Apart from on independence?
I certainly don't think he's on PB, or at least not under the name of Malcolm!
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
Move in with your new wife and sell your now unneeded house, is one obvious possibility that fits the facts?
They got married in 2010. I suppose he might have had cash sitting around for the next 11 years....
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
Move in with your new wife and sell your now unneeded house, is one obvious possibility that fits the facts?
They got married in 2010. I suppose he might have had cash sitting around for the next 11 years....
Thanks. Seemed a lot more recent to my memory, such as it is!
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
Move in with your new wife and sell your now unneeded house, is one obvious possibility that fits the facts?
They got married in 2010. I suppose he might have had cash sitting around for the next 11 years....
Thanks. Seemed a lot more recent to my memory, such as it is!
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
The entry was this:
c) Loans from executive management Loans payable at 1st January 2021 Loans introduced in the year 107,620 Movement (net) in year (47,620) Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
It does seem rather fortunate, that Murrell has basically two years’ salary in cash, available to lend to the party.
Move in with your new wife and sell your now unneeded house, is one obvious possibility that fits the facts?
They got married in 2010. I suppose he might have had cash sitting around for the next 11 years....
Thanks. Seemed a lot more recent to my memory, such as it is!
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
Could this happen to somebody who is white and not of an immigrant family?
Talking of social mobility, my family has been researching our past. Turns out in the 12th century our direct ancestors owned an enormous estate near Helford, Cornwall, on Frenchman’s Creek (one of the most beautiful places in the UK, if not all of Europe). We owned lots of early tin mines, smelting houses etc. The Manor House is still there but it’s Regency architecture, as the medieval castellated mansion burned down
30 generations later, direct descendants of these people were living in slums a few miles away. One family had eight kids where every single male child over ten years old was a tin miner. Aged 11 etc. The girls were bal maidens breaking rocks. They worked (without realising it) in the mines their ancestors used to own. The next generation was even poorer and relied on “alms” to survive. My great great grandparents
Social mobility can be downwards as well as upwards. Ours was a slow but stark decline
The Lancashire saying was “clogs to clogs in three generations”!
Invest in crypto and people are managing it in a single one.
Researching Family History does turn up some surprises.So far as I’ve so far discovered the vast majority of my paternal ancestors were Ag Labs or, occasionally, small farmers, in SW Wales. However my grandfather used to insist that his grandfather had been a doctor! When I dug into it I found that his grandfather was in fact the illegitimate son on a medical student, himself the son of someone who kept a small hotel, in Carmarthenshire. The medical student had qualified and, after practising in Wales for a few years, went to London, ‘married money’ and done very well for himself, leaving some £3m in today’s money. His descendants became career Army officers.
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
Client selection questions:
Has the CEO or former CEO ever been arrested?
2. Has your Treasurer or former Treasurer ever resigned because he could not gain access to the books?
The Times reported the other day that the police are focussing on car purchases in this investigation.
If it’s anything less than a Merc I’m going to be disappointed.
Imagine getting arrested over a Nissan.
What I would guess they are looking for are transactions that are not reflected in the accounts. Similarly with the searches: is there evidence of other undeclared funds based upon undeclared donations that should have been in the accounts sent the Electoral Commission?
The loan Mr Murrell gave to the SNP was intriguing.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
I'm always really skeptical of top bods and politicos getting 'confused' about such matters. The rules often are confusing for the layman, but senior people and party officials have the means to get proper advice and training on these things.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
But the UK is a racist, oppressive, and nepotistic country, according to many on the left. Might they be wrong?
Genuinely, it’s been brilliant to see in recent years people of all genders, colours, and creeds, in senior positions in government. The UK is one of the best places in the world for this, despite what detractors might say.
The UK, Scotland, and London are ruled by non white people, from three different parties.
Take a bow the UK.
Wouldn't have predicted that 20 years ago. An unambiguously positive development without caveats for once, that the top level of politics is genuinely open, and not just to one strand of politics either.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last five PMs went to Oxford. The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Will enjoy Starmer staring at his shoes when asked "Given the polls all say you will be well short of a majority, who will you govern with?"
Well it won't be the SNP with them imploding. Current Scotland polls suggest Labour would win 15+ seats there. You think Humsa Useless is going to turn it around? Which means if Labour are short their most likely partners are the Lib Dems. And whatever people think of them, nobody thinks they aren't reliable coalition partners or are terrified of Ed Davey.
Oh, it's quite possible the SNP could have a torrid time, mired in all manner of scandals, but still retain enough seats to be required for Labour to take office.
In which case the Tories will regroup and bide their time.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last five PMs went to Oxford. The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
Yes the Oxford advantage definitely holds true in the PM stakes but I think it holds more broadly. In terms of providing access to the elite I would guess that Oxford is quite far ahead of Cambridge. On the other hand I think I found Cambridge a much less c***-filled environment than my sister found Oxford. The two things are probably related. In short, I think it may be a mistake to lump the two places together.
I started a new job a month or so ago so I haven’t had much time for PB or reading, but I am v much enjoying the first Rick Perlstein book in his growing chronology of US Conservatism.
One of things that Perlstein does well is to capture the sense of place in political history, from Nixon’s angrily right wing Orange County to Rockefeller’s luxury penthouse in Midtown Manhattan. Goldwater was an Arizona phenomenon, Nixon a (Southern) California one, Rockefeller impeccably New York.
I then return to UK politics, which is drearily and unhealthily concentrated in London.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Whilst I don't doubt there will be some swingback before the GE, I can't see Labour not getting a stonking majority.
However: the tweet above shows an issue that has been mentioned on here before: Labour's lead is not down to any brilliance on Labour's or Starmer's part: it's down to an implosion by the Conservatives.
Between 1992 and 1997, Major's Conservative party suffered a similar (worse?) implosion. And Blair was there not just to capitalise on it; but to give a positive vision with a smiley face. Blair was likeable. Blair was unthreatening.
Starmer is not Blair; and whilst that *might* be morally good, Blair was an electoral asset. Starmer needs to be more like Blair to seal the deal.
Whatever you think about Blair, he was able to embody a sense of renewal in a way that Starmer cannot.
Who can forget "today is not day for sound-bites; I feel the hand of history on my shoulder" ?
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last five PMs went to Oxford. The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
Yes the Oxford advantage definitely holds true in the PM stakes but I think it holds more broadly. In terms of providing access to the elite I would guess that Oxford is quite far ahead of Cambridge. On the other hand I think I found Cambridge a much less c***-filled environment than my sister found Oxford. The two things are probably related. In short, I think it may be a mistake to lump the two places together.
Sadly I am too proletarian to have anything like a first-hand opinion. As a place to visit, though, Cambridge beats Oxford. The latter is a kind of tourist-infested tat-town.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
Whilst I don't doubt there will be some swingback before the GE, I can't see Labour not getting a stonking majority.
However: the tweet above shows an issue that has been mentioned on here before: Labour's lead is not down to any brilliance on Labour's or Starmer's part: it's down to an implosion by the Conservatives.
Between 1992 and 1997, Major's Conservative party suffered a similar (worse?) implosion. And Blair was there not just to capitalise on it; but to give a positive vision with a smiley face. Blair was likeable. Blair was unthreatening.
Starmer is not Blair; and whilst that *might* be morally good, Blair was an electoral asset. Starmer needs to be more like Blair to seal the deal.
Whatever you think about Blair, he was able to embody a sense of renewal in a way that Starmer cannot.
Who can forget "today is not day for sound-bites; I feel the hand of history on my shoulder" ?
There was always a heavy theatrical air with Blair. He played sincere so well, he even convinced himself.
2024 is going to be tighter than the polls suggest.
I’ve got a piece on this theme for the weekend.
Contains an awesome pun.
One of PB’s best ever.
You do know the one about underpromising and overdelivering ?
I’ve decided to ditch my modest self effacing approach to life and become brash and self confident.
If you are as working class as you are modest, does that mean you're now going to become middle class?
I recently did a survey at work and it said I was upper middle class.
I was shocked.
No no, a Cambridge-educated banker’s lawyer son of a doctor, is a modest working-class yeoman.
Says so much about the class system that grandson of humble immigrants can enter the upper middle class within two generations*.
A tribute to the inclusivity of this country.
*Proper generation, not a Scottish one.
But the UK is a racist, oppressive, and nepotistic country, according to many on the left. Might they be wrong?
Genuinely, it’s been brilliant to see in recent years people of all genders, colours, and creeds, in senior positions in government. The UK is one of the best places in the world for this, despite what detractors might say.
The UK, Scotland, and London are ruled by non white people, from three different parties.
Take a bow the UK.
I’m not a Tory voter, but Sunak has been a pretty steadying influence on the party after his two inept predecessors.
Thinking a little more about that attack as, I wonder if there is some deeper strategy behind it.
A warning shot, perhaps, in this pre-war stage of the next GE campaign?
*If you want to drag us into the gutter, we’ll fight, but do you really want to go there?*
It did look, to me, up until now, that this was going to be the Tory plan. The evidence of them scraping the barnacles off the boat (cf; Julian Knight et al) pointed in this direction.
But I’m not so sure.
It’s quite possible both lab and con will step back from the brink.
A gentleman’s handshake, so to speak. Like in the thick of episode where the spin doctors negotiate a truce;
"The firm that audits the SNP's finances has resigned, the BBC has learned.
Accountants Johnston Carmichael, which has worked with the party for more than a decade, said the decision was taken after a review of its client portfolio."
They've only done this because they realise it looks bad to remain in post. They could've issued a qualified report (question, was it qualified in 2021 year end I wonder?) if they thought there was some inpropiety going on.
Indeed, the whole point of an audit is to issue a report, good or bad. If you will never issue a bad one, because of the publicity, then what's the point of an audit report anyway?
So I suppose the question is now (and again, I don't know) is how long this..... £600k 'problem' has been swirling around. If it's before December 2021, why did the auditors either: a) Not spot it; or b) Did spot it and didn't say anything
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last five PMs went to Oxford. The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
Yes the Oxford advantage definitely holds true in the PM stakes but I think it holds more broadly. In terms of providing access to the elite I would guess that Oxford is quite far ahead of Cambridge. On the other hand I think I found Cambridge a much less c***-filled environment than my sister found Oxford. The two things are probably related. In short, I think it may be a mistake to lump the two places together.
Sadly I am too proletarian to have anything like a first-hand opinion. As a place to visit, though, Cambridge beats Oxford. The latter is a kind of tourist-infested tat-town.
I can happily report that my dads funeral passed off seamlessly. Good turnout. 50 people? Very sweet service. Beautiful old church by the Tresillian river. The sun shone. Lots of booze and laughter after. And, most importantly, I didn’t blub during my eulogy. Just one well timed, tiny, manly choke of emotion
I did drink 3 glasses of Nyetimber rose beforehand
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
I think Oxford is more elitist and Cambridge more intellectual.
Thinking a little more about that attack as, I wonder if there is some deeper strategy behind it.
A warning shot, perhaps, in this pre-war stage of the next GE campaign?
*If you want to drag us into the gutter, we’ll fight, but do you really want to go there?*
It did look, to me, up until now, that this was going to be the Tory plan. The evidence of them scraping the barnacles off the boat (cf; Julian Knight et al) pointed in this direction.
But I’m not so sure.
It’s quite possible both lab and con will step back from the brink.
A gentleman’s handshake, so to speak. Like in the thick of episode where the spin doctors negotiate a truce;
Perhaps it’s not possible in this social media environment? I dunno.
If they do drag each other into the gutter, the LD’s and Greens may well overperform?
On Julian Knight, does anyone on PB have any clue what’s going on?
Police investigation dropped. No arrest, but still not got the whip back. Whips office aware of more allegations, but won’t say any more.
Constituency selection should be happening soon. Are the whips office using unspecified allegations as a cover for parachuting in a Sunakite into a (relatively) safe seat? Or is it being used as leverage against him? I don’t think he has much to give.
Maybe he’s being punished for backing Truss?
Maybe there is something dark about to come out. It would surprise me, tbh.
Just hoping Rishi doesn't look at Starmer's ad, and then this, and get the wrong idea...
Graphic designer @mahirgra who designed stickers reading “Do you find this product expensive? Thanks to Erdogan” was detained this morning accused of insulting the president. The stickers were for open distribution and appeared on various products through markets since yesterday https://mobile.twitter.com/selingirit/status/1644289416582639617
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
I think Oxford is more elitist and Cambridge more intellectual.
Scenario 1: Your bank balance is £1m, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £900k.
Scenario 2: Your bank balance is £100k, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £0.
Is the ringfenced money still there? Legally and mathematically, I can't see the difference between the two scenarios. But I bet it feels different to the people who donated to the ringfenced fund.
Ringfenced money really should be in a separate account.
According to charity commission guidance (don’t know if it is law) restricted funds should be kept in a separate account
Seattle Times ($) Sea-Tac Airport’s new $1B international terminal too tight a squeeze for 20 big jets
The gleaming new International Arrivals Facility at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which opened last year at a cost of about $1 billion, was supposed to fit 20 big, widebody aircraft simultaneously.
But according to the Port of Seattle, that many long-haul aircraft won’t fit side by side because of flaws in the design.
The Port, which operates the airport, says the facility can currently take only 16 large aircraft at a time.
In a letter sent in August to Clark Construction, which built the new facility, the Port said the 20% shortfall in capacity could cause “damages to the Port’s operations in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over the expected life of this project.” . . .
. . . The design of the gate area where jets arrive and park and where passengers board or disembark was subcontracted to Arup, a London-based design and engineering firm responsible for landmark building projects all over the globe, including the Sydney Opera House.
It’s this exterior gate area that’s now at the center of the dispute.
Gates where some jets won’t fit
In an emailed statement, Clark Senior Vice President Brett Earnest, who leads projects in the Pacific Northwest, said the company engaged “best-in-class aviation design experts” to work on the International Arrivals Facility and that the completed facility “meets the Port’s established goals and requirements.”
“The current gate configuration is consistent with the Port-approved concourse study and meets the specifications and requirements per our contract,” Earnest added.
The Port disagrees.
Each international gate had to be designed to take specific widebody aircraft. For example, Gate S5 at the South Satellite was to accommodate Airbus A330s and Boeing 787s. Gate S4 was to take the larger Boeing 777.
There had to be room to safely maneuver not only the aircraft but all the service equipment that surround the parked planes — fuel hydrant trucks, potable water and lavatory trucks, baggage carts and push-back tugs — as well as the passenger loading bridge that is rolled over to the jet’s door.
After conducting “aircraft fit checks,” the Port concluded that at some gates the required jets could not fit in the allotted space. . . .
Clark’s latest legal brief, filed in late February, asserts that the contract documents defining the work “specifically state that Clark was to design the Project to accommodate narrowbody aircraft at Gates A6 and A8, not widebody aircraft.”
In addition, “Clark denies that the Port attempted to work with Clark to find solutions to the alleged gate configuration issues,” the legal brief states.
A trial at King County Superior Court is scheduled for December.
Whichever party is found liable for the flawed design of the gates, the capacity shortfall is a serious blow to the airport and any fixes will clearly be expensive.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
I think Oxford is more elitist and Cambridge more intellectual.
Cambridge has the advantage of not offering BTEC Politics PPE. Plus maths and science set the tone more; you can't blag those. (Whaddya mean? It's a vocational course)
Just hoping Rishi doesn't look at Starmer's ad, and then this, and get the wrong idea...
Graphic designer @mahirgra who designed stickers reading “Do you find this product expensive? Thanks to Erdogan” was detained this morning accused of insulting the president. The stickers were for open distribution and appeared on various products through markets since yesterday https://mobile.twitter.com/selingirit/status/1644289416582639617
Hopefully he's going to lose. Kilicdaroglu may not have much charisma and a difficult name to memorise but he seems like a decent chap.
Still, many of our institutions were captured by a small number of radicals nonetheless. And this happened partly because the elites running the institutions didn’t have a clue how to stand up to the incoming wave of moral cant, guilt-tripping, and bullying from younger and differently socialised generations. On what firm ground might they have stood in order to see this off? They don’t have a political vocabulary with which to counter the wild rhetoric, and nor do they have the convictions or earnestness to make it stick. What they do have is a suppressed sense of guilt for being so rich, a vague fear that they might make the wrong joke, and a fervent hope that the moralising will stop soon so they can talk about the football or cricket instead. Many of them also have children who lecture them about social justice. They can’t stand up to them either.
Peter Hitchens is right IMO when he says most people at the top of the Conservative Party don't really have any strong opinions on anything, apart from staying in office. They look down on Conservative activists who do actually believe in things.
Both Kathleen Stock and Peter Hitchens are right.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
The Stock article rang broadly true - most Oxbridge elite types are really just interested in having a comfy life. Which isn't that surprising as they are just human beings. One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last five PMs went to Oxford. The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
Yes the Oxford advantage definitely holds true in the PM stakes but I think it holds more broadly. In terms of providing access to the elite I would guess that Oxford is quite far ahead of Cambridge. On the other hand I think I found Cambridge a much less c***-filled environment than my sister found Oxford. The two things are probably related. In short, I think it may be a mistake to lump the two places together.
Sadly I am too proletarian to have anything like a first-hand opinion. As a place to visit, though, Cambridge beats Oxford. The latter is a kind of tourist-infested tat-town.
Not a fresh take, but has a true proletarian ever casually used the term proletarian though?
Just hoping Rishi doesn't look at Starmer's ad, and then this, and get the wrong idea...
Graphic designer @mahirgra who designed stickers reading “Do you find this product expensive? Thanks to Erdogan” was detained this morning accused of insulting the president. The stickers were for open distribution and appeared on various products through markets since yesterday https://mobile.twitter.com/selingirit/status/1644289416582639617
Hopefully he's going to lose. Kilicdaroglu may not have much charisma and a difficult name to memorise but he seems like a decent chap.
Erdogan is one of those increasingly authoritarian leaders out there right now, is he really going to allow himself to be defeated if it looks like happening?
I see from the wiki page for the elections Erdogan adopted the increasingly common approach of leaders that you might not be able to run again, but if you change the constitution your term number is reset. I preferred when Putin moved positions whilst retaining control, it was more unique.
Smart motorways could be banned within months under plans being considered by the prime minister.
Rishi Sunak is understood to be thinking about bringing forward a decision on the controversial roads, whose rollout is on hold as safety data is gathered, from the current deadline of 2025. He has also been discussing the possibility of whether to kick a decision into the long grass until 2030, following talks between No 10 and the Department for Transport.
Sources have said scrapping new smart motorways is the likeliest option, especially given comments Sunak made during last summer’s leadership contest when he said: “Smart motorways are unpopular because they are unsafe. We need to listen to drivers, be on their side and stop with the pursuit of policies that go against common sense.”
They definitely think that getting people reflecting about law and order will be a plus for them, regardless of whether people think the specific allegation is reasonable or fair. I think it's a sign of their confidence rather than desperation - they no longer believe it will be seen as a weak area for them, so can play a bit dirty with it.
They definitely think that getting people reflecting about law and order will be a plus for them, regardless of whether people think the specific allegation is reasonable or fair. I think it's a sign of their confidence rather than desperation - they no longer believe it will be seen as a weak area for them, so can play a bit dirty with it.
The reality is that Labour *do* have a better record, and that the Tory record is atrocious. The fail here is to pin it on Rishi.
Rishi has other / better / more legitimate vulnerabilities.
Smart motorways could be banned within months under plans being considered by the prime minister.
Rishi Sunak is understood to be thinking about bringing forward a decision on the controversial roads, whose rollout is on hold as safety data is gathered, from the current deadline of 2025. He has also been discussing the possibility of whether to kick a decision into the long grass until 2030, following talks between No 10 and the Department for Transport.
Sources have said scrapping new smart motorways is the likeliest option, especially given comments Sunak made during last summer’s leadership contest when he said: “Smart motorways are unpopular because they are unsafe. We need to listen to drivers, be on their side and stop with the pursuit of policies that go against common sense.”
Scrapping the smart motorway on the M6 from Stafford to West Brom is an absolute no brainer. It's managed what I would have sworn was the impossible feat of making congestion far worse.
They definitely think that getting people reflecting about law and order will be a plus for them, regardless of whether people think the specific allegation is reasonable or fair. I think it's a sign of their confidence rather than desperation - they no longer believe it will be seen as a weak area for them, so can play a bit dirty with it.
The reality is that Labour *do* have a better record, and that the Tory record is atrocious.
That may be, but the public can be weird about these things - it's often been commented that it would be easier for Labour to make changes to the NHS, or Tories to defence and police, regardless of whether their respective records in those areas indicate it is an area of strength.
Bank holiday bike ride. Which famous event from political history took place here? (About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).
Comments
Keir’s ability to manage that tension may well be key to the stability and longevity of his administration.
Labour has quite a lot of policy, including in tax, law and order, devolution and the constitution, environment and energy, and foreign affairs. They are still rather lacking on education, EU relationship, health and social care. But so frankly are the actual current government.
Take a bow the UK.
Starmer thinks, and is to an extent right to think, he's had his "Clause 4 moment" with Corbyn's removal. It's certainly a very visible line that has been drawn under that period.
This is what has happened.
There's a weakness of character in the British elite. Which, coupled with her intelligence and sheer hard work, is what made Margaret Thatcher such a contrast and so bloody effective.
“A law professor has been falsely accused of sexually harassing a student in reputation-ruining misinformation shared by ChatGPT, it has been alleged.
“US criminal defence attorney, Jonathan Turley, has raised fears over the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) after being wrongly accused of unwanted sexual behaviour on an Alaska trip he never went on.
“To jump to this conclusion, it was claimed that ChatGPT relied on a cited Washington Post article that had never been written, quoting a statement that was never issued by the newspaper.
“The chatbot also believed that the 'incident' took place while the professor was working in a faculty he had never been employed in.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11948855/ChatGPT-falsely-accuses-law-professor-SEX-ATTACK-against-students.html
Happy Easter PB!
ACRO says payment data safe, other info may have been snaffled
https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/06/acro_security_incident/
Before we get all 'inspired' again we need to stop doing bad and stupid things. SKS is a good fit for this imo. In this sense it really is 'cometh the hour cometh the man'. I'm very confident of a Labour win at the GE and I think a big majority is more likely than no majority.
So there, William. That's that said and done. Back to the Masters golf now and my Big Chocolate Egg.
Scenario 1: Your bank balance is £1m, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £900k.
Scenario 2: Your bank balance is £100k, you raise £600k ringfenced for a cause. Later, you spend £700k on operating expenses such that the balance is now £0.
Is the ringfenced money still there? Legally and mathematically, I can't see the difference between the two scenarios. But I bet it feels different to the people who donated to the ringfenced fund.
Ringfenced money really should be in a separate account.
IIRC he thought it didn’t need to be declared but in fact did need to be declared.
30 generations later, direct descendants of these people were living in slums a few miles away. One family had eight kids where every single male child over ten years old was a tin miner. Aged 11 etc. The girls were bal maidens breaking rocks. They worked (without realising it) in the mines their ancestors used to own. The next generation was even poorer and relied on “alms” to survive. My great great grandparents
Social mobility can be downwards as well as upwards. Ours was a slow but stark decline
Mid/late 1990s: it's fashionable to be a Blairite, so we'll all be Blairites for the next 5/10 years.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/07/joe-biden-secret-service-guns-banned-dail-irish-parliament/
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh could help them on the best practice on that.
c) Loans from executive management
Loans payable at 1st January 2021
Loans introduced in the year 107,620
Movement (net) in year (47,620)
Loans payable at 31st December 2021 (note 21) 60,000
According to those accounts Mr Murrell was on £78K that year. Quite a remarkable sum to be able to lend on that salary.
I did drink 3 glasses of Nyetimber rose beforehand
One thing I would say is that while "Oxbridge" lumps Oxford and Cambridge together, having gone to Cambridge I do wonder if Oxford is a bit more elite than Cambridge is. The kind of utterly self-interested, complacent, "yah aren't we all clever and we're all going to end up running the country" attitude that she describes, while plausible, isn't something I really recognise among my Cambridge peers. Or maybe, being mostly comprehensive school kids, we haven't really been let into the elite's inner core. Either way, I would endorse the message that the elite are essentially self interested careerists not ideological.
The last Cambridge graduate was Stanley Baldwin.
In which case the Tories will regroup and bide their time.
One of things that Perlstein does well is to capture the sense of place in political history, from Nixon’s angrily right wing Orange County to Rockefeller’s luxury penthouse in Midtown Manhattan. Goldwater was an Arizona phenomenon, Nixon a (Southern) California one, Rockefeller impeccably New York.
I then return to UK politics, which is drearily and unhealthily concentrated in London.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/07/i-still-cant-handle-the-big-ones-the-new-wave-of-spider-hunters-scouring-britains-heaths
Robert Browning Applies.
A warning shot, perhaps, in this pre-war stage of the next GE campaign?
*If you want to drag us into the gutter, we’ll fight, but do you really want to go there?*
It did look, to me, up until now, that this was going to be the Tory plan. The evidence of them scraping the barnacles off the boat (cf; Julian Knight et al) pointed in this direction.
But I’m not so sure.
It’s quite possible both lab and con will step back from the brink.
A gentleman’s handshake, so to speak. Like in the thick of episode where the spin doctors negotiate a truce;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaydTJqZoIM
(Which happens just after the end of that clip)
Perhaps it’s not possible in this social media environment? I dunno.
If they do drag each other into the gutter, the LD’s and Greens may well overperform?
If it's before December 2021, why did the auditors either:
a) Not spot it; or
b) Did spot it and didn't say anything
https://twitter.com/mrblairbowman/status/1644273903706021889?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Surely there is no such thing as a bad Friday?
Police investigation dropped. No arrest, but still not got the whip back. Whips office aware of more allegations, but won’t say any more.
Constituency selection should be happening soon. Are the whips office using unspecified allegations as a cover for parachuting in a Sunakite into a (relatively) safe seat? Or is it being used as leverage against him? I don’t think he has much to give.
Maybe he’s being punished for backing Truss?
Maybe there is something dark about to come out. It would surprise me, tbh.
Graphic designer @mahirgra who designed stickers reading “Do you find this product expensive? Thanks to Erdogan” was detained this morning accused of insulting the president. The stickers were for open distribution and appeared on various products through markets since yesterday
https://mobile.twitter.com/selingirit/status/1644289416582639617
Stephen Fry.
This redbrick graduate would like to believe he was right.
Seattle Times ($) Sea-Tac Airport’s new $1B international terminal too tight a squeeze for 20 big jets
The gleaming new International Arrivals Facility at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which opened last year at a cost of about $1 billion, was supposed to fit 20 big, widebody aircraft simultaneously.
But according to the Port of Seattle, that many long-haul aircraft won’t fit side by side because of flaws in the design.
The Port, which operates the airport, says the facility can currently take only 16 large aircraft at a time.
In a letter sent in August to Clark Construction, which built the new facility, the Port said the 20% shortfall in capacity could cause “damages to the Port’s operations in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over the expected life of this project.” . . .
. . . The design of the gate area where jets arrive and park and where passengers board or disembark was subcontracted to Arup, a London-based design and engineering firm responsible for landmark building projects all over the globe, including the Sydney Opera House.
It’s this exterior gate area that’s now at the center of the dispute.
Gates where some jets won’t fit
In an emailed statement, Clark Senior Vice President Brett Earnest, who leads projects in the Pacific Northwest, said the company engaged “best-in-class aviation design experts” to work on the International Arrivals Facility and that the completed facility “meets the Port’s established goals and requirements.”
“The current gate configuration is consistent with the Port-approved concourse study and meets the specifications and requirements per our contract,” Earnest added.
The Port disagrees.
Each international gate had to be designed to take specific widebody aircraft. For example, Gate S5 at the South Satellite was to accommodate Airbus A330s and Boeing 787s. Gate S4 was to take the larger Boeing 777.
There had to be room to safely maneuver not only the aircraft but all the service equipment that surround the parked planes — fuel hydrant trucks, potable water and lavatory trucks, baggage carts and push-back tugs — as well as the passenger loading bridge that is rolled over to the jet’s door.
After conducting “aircraft fit checks,” the Port concluded that at some gates the required jets could not fit in the allotted space. . . .
Clark’s latest legal brief, filed in late February, asserts that the contract documents defining the work “specifically state that Clark was to design the Project to accommodate narrowbody aircraft at Gates A6 and A8, not widebody aircraft.”
In addition, “Clark denies that the Port attempted to work with Clark to find solutions to the alleged gate configuration issues,” the legal brief states.
A trial at King County Superior Court is scheduled for December.
Whichever party is found liable for the flawed design of the gates, the capacity shortfall is a serious blow to the airport and any fixes will clearly be expensive.
Then I went to university and given a dollop of confidence and it supercharged me into the chap you see today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65212357
I see from the wiki page for the elections Erdogan adopted the increasingly common approach of leaders that you might not be able to run again, but if you change the constitution your term number is reset. I preferred when Putin moved positions whilst retaining control, it was more unique.
Rishi Sunak is understood to be thinking about bringing forward a decision on the controversial roads, whose rollout is on hold as safety data is gathered, from the current deadline of 2025. He has also been discussing the possibility of whether to kick a decision into the long grass until 2030, following talks between No 10 and the Department for Transport.
Sources have said scrapping new smart motorways is the likeliest option, especially given comments Sunak made during last summer’s leadership contest when he said: “Smart motorways are unpopular because they are unsafe. We need to listen to drivers, be on their side and stop with the pursuit of policies that go against common sense.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/smart-motorways-could-be-banned-within-months-mmk0n2872
Unless our state broadcaster is as quick as Man Utd’s back four.
Personally I don’t even think they are effective. They are easily mistaken as ads for Rishi himself.
Rishi has other / better / more legitimate vulnerabilities.
Former S Club 7 member Paul Cattermole has died aged 46
https://news.sky.com/story/s-club-7s-paul-cattermole-dies-aged-46-12851988
(About to get back on my bike so any speculation will have to remain just that for a bit).