Latest general election most seats betting – politicalbetting.com
We could be less than a year away from the general election and betting markets like the one above are going to get a lot of attention as we get closer.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Doesn't matter a damn if the polls are good enough for Labour. There's little if any correlation between the results of an election five years ago and this one, but the polls 3-6 months before are very highly correlated with the eventual result.
If I had to make a wild guess I would say at the moment Labour to gain about 70 seats from the Tories and the Lib Dems 15. That's not including any gains from the SNP (which unless they are gained by the Tories are pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things).
That would not make Labour the largest party but it would make it impossible for Sunak to continue.
But that's (a) a guess and (b) there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge yet.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
Only tv I’m watching May 6th is Liverpool v Brentford and the F1 qualifying.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
The only thing I did for the world cup was flip on the last 30 minutes of the Final, when England were in it.
I otherwise never touch, watch or read about football and simply ignore anyone who does.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
The William/Kate wedding had a peak audience of 26.3 million and an estimated 36.7 million watched some part of the coverage. I think that's a more likely precedent and set of figures than for the Platinum Jubilee.
We were assured that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the flow.
Indeed, when the weather conditions were unfavorable immediately after the initial announcement, Conservative sources and newspapers were slapping themselves on the back for their success.
As some on the robust right here have pointed out, this scheme can only be effective if every boat person is pinged to Rwanda until the message gets through, which will take time. And there's little sign of that happening- not just because of law but also because of system capacity.
Morally, which is better? Doing something bloodcurdling, or promising to do something bloodcurdling in the knowledge that you won't be able to do it?
Looking at those odds, they seem about right to me. Always disappointing when that happens.
One of the reasons I used to enjoy betting on cycling was that on the opening of a market (apart from the Tour de France, which was generally well-priced) anyone who followed the sport closely could generally find excellent value.
Family meant I stopped following it as much, which cost me a (pretty minor, tbf) revenue stream. Political betting, otoh, I’m a net loser.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
FWIW I think 20 million + will watch live. Things like the Coronation are like weddings, not jubilees etc, birthdays etc. There is an actual something unique to watch. Many big national events are all build up and commentary and no genuinely unique feature. This one is different. It's like general election night for PBers.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
I do wonder if there is another factor to consider. We know that social media and especially Facebook are influential with politics. From what I can see the only rabidly pro-Tory voices on Facebook groups are the ones who might have enjoyed visiting the pub with the gollywogs. Combine that with the calibre of the mince MP that was elected in 2019 and I do think they have a problem.
It isn't just that the Tories have been reduced to culture wars and racism. Its that with even moderate Tories (and Mince too - cf Jonathan "Brains" Gullis attacking Braverman) getting that skin-crawling feeling about their policies and pronouncements, and BNP style rejects ramping them on social media and GBeebies, you have to pinch your nose quite hard to want to vote for *that*.
I honestly think we will see a big drop in turnout, especially in some of the red wall seats where they have been led up the garden path and then let down the hardest. Lab to UKIP to Tory voters likely to stay home, taking a chunk off the Tory tally leaving Labour to walk through comfortably. And similar in the blue wall, with LD instead of Labour in many seats.
People just aren't as amoral as the worst of today's Tories hope.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
As early as 1994 Gallup gave Labour 61% for PM favourability, almost three times higher than Major's 23%.
Starmer's not exactly Tony Blair, is he?
Nor is Sunak Thatcher or Churchill. It’s more Kinnock vs Howard.
The leader I think Starmer is most like, strangely, is early Thatcher. They are both highly partisan. Thatcher could only have been Conservative; Starmer could only be Labour. But there are a lot of similarities. Both highly influenced by their parent; both rooted in an old fashioned idea of community; both have monotonous speaking styles; both highly focused; both underestimated going into their first elections as leaders.
Also I think we're in something of a 1979 Winter of Discontent situation, where there's a perception the country doesn't work properly and the incumbent government are driven by ideology rather than competence. Even Sunak somewhat fits the analogy as, like Callaghan he is more popular than his party.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
I totally fail why Barclay has not had negotiations with the nurses, but has simply gone to court. Strikes me, he is a man who has made up his mind irrespective of the facts.
I am coming to the conclusion that the monarchy will do well under King Charles III.
King’s coronation to be a beacon of inclusion and diversity
The ex-children’s television presenter Baroness Benjamin, a female Royal Navy petty officer and a former actor from The Archers are among those with historic roles in a coronation hailed for promoting “diversity and inclusion”.
The service at Westminster Abbey will feature several women of colour, including Baroness Amos, Dame Elizabeth Anionwu and the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin.
As forecast by The Times, there will be an abbey procession of leaders of other faiths, while peers from the four main non-Christian faiths — Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Jewish — will present regalia to the King. Lady Benjamin, who will carry regalia to the altar, said: “I feel honoured and privileged to be part of the historic Coronation ceremony. To be selected to carry the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Dove, which represents spirituality, equity and mercy, is for me very symbolic as it sends out a clear message that diversity and inclusion is being embraced.”
The former nurse Lady Anionwu, who together with Lady Benjamin was one of the last members of the Order of Merit chosen by the Queen, will carry the Orb. As well as attempting to reflect racial diversity, the ceremony will be more socially inclusive than any coronation that has gone before. Petty Officer Amy Taylor will be the first woman to bear the Jewelled Sword of Offering into the Abbey. She has been selected to represent servicemen and women in a tribute to the King’s military career. She said: “Having served most of my senior career as an aircraft engineer on 845 Naval Air Squadron at RNAS Yeovilton where His Majesty originally trained and served as a pilot, I am deeply honoured and humbled to play my part in this historic event.”
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
I totally fail why Barclay has not had negotiations with the nurses, but has simply gone to court. Strikes me, he is a man who has made up his mind irrespective of the facts.
Going to court makes sense because the second day of the strike did fall outside the mandate the strike vote created.
That doesn't mean it' was a sane plan but it was better than suing the union next week...
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
As early as 1994 Gallup gave Labour 61% for PM favourability, almost three times higher than Major's 23%.
Starmer's not exactly Tony Blair, is he?
Nor is Sunak Thatcher or Churchill. It’s more Kinnock vs Howard.
The leader I think Starmer is most like, strangely, is early Thatcher. They are both highly partisan. Thatcher could only have been Conservative; Starmer could only be Labour. But there are a lot of similarities. Both highly influenced by their parent; both rooted in an old fashioned idea of community; both have monotonous speaking styles; both highly focused; both underestimated going into their first elections as leaders.
Also I think we're in something of a 1979 Winter of Discontent situation, where there's a perception the country doesn't work properly and the incumbent government are driven by ideology rather than competence. Even Sunak somewhat fits the analogy as, like Callaghan he is more popular than his party.
Intriguing how we are drawn to search for comparisons so much. In reality there are dozens of personalities, hundreds of scenarios so the chance of finding a close match between a forthcoming election and a previous one in our lifetimes is actually quite slim.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
I totally fail why Barclay has not had negotiations with the nurses, but has simply gone to court. Strikes me, he is a man who has made up his mind irrespective of the facts.
The NHS Staff Council on Tuesday will be finely balanced. Physios and Midwives voted to accept, radiographers to reject the offer. As all non medical staff are on AFC bands, it really has to be all, none, or to revise the whole pay spine.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
The more Starmer seems to saying, the more I’m inclined to vote LibDem. Or possibly Green; I haven’t forgotten tuition fees!
Does the Green party have any chance of winning the seat?
If not your vote isn't going to matter and you may as well save yourself 10 minutes and not bother voting.
Each vote for the Greens in seats they don't win is worth just under 20p in Short money funding for the party, provided they hold onto Caroline Lucas' seat in Brighton. Sure, I guess you could simply donate a £1 to them instead, but they're also never going to look like they have a chance of winning a second seat unless people vote for them in seats where they currently look like they have little chance and start building a track record of receiving votes.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
If ministers had a track record of managing their departments well, these stories would not happen or be ignored.
But they don't. They fail relentlessly, and get promoted to the next job until scandal hits or they fall out with their leader over something or other.
Perhaps its a massive conspiracy. Or perhaps we have simply elected quite a few incompetent ministers who don't have a clue what they are doing.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
Only tv I’m watching May 6th is Liverpool v Brentford and the F1 qualifying.
Part of my romantic getaway that 3 day weekend.
Liverpool v Brentford doesn't sound hugely romantic.
I am coming to the conclusion that the monarchy will do well under King Charles III.
King’s coronation to be a beacon of inclusion and diversity
The ex-children’s television presenter Baroness Benjamin, a female Royal Navy petty officer and a former actor from The Archers are among those with historic roles in a coronation hailed for promoting “diversity and inclusion”.
The service at Westminster Abbey will feature several women of colour, including Baroness Amos, Dame Elizabeth Anionwu and the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin.
As forecast by The Times, there will be an abbey procession of leaders of other faiths, while peers from the four main non-Christian faiths — Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Jewish — will present regalia to the King. Lady Benjamin, who will carry regalia to the altar, said: “I feel honoured and privileged to be part of the historic Coronation ceremony. To be selected to carry the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Dove, which represents spirituality, equity and mercy, is for me very symbolic as it sends out a clear message that diversity and inclusion is being embraced.”
The former nurse Lady Anionwu, who together with Lady Benjamin was one of the last members of the Order of Merit chosen by the Queen, will carry the Orb. As well as attempting to reflect racial diversity, the ceremony will be more socially inclusive than any coronation that has gone before. Petty Officer Amy Taylor will be the first woman to bear the Jewelled Sword of Offering into the Abbey. She has been selected to represent servicemen and women in a tribute to the King’s military career. She said: “Having served most of my senior career as an aircraft engineer on 845 Naval Air Squadron at RNAS Yeovilton where His Majesty originally trained and served as a pilot, I am deeply honoured and humbled to play my part in this historic event.”
The more Starmer seems to saying, the more I’m inclined to vote LibDem. Or possibly Green; I haven’t forgotten tuition fees!
Does the Green party have any chance of winning the seat?
If not your vote isn't going to matter and you may as well save yourself 10 minutes and not bother voting.
Votes for minor parties are more effective than DNV or spoilt ballots (which presumably binned after a glance) as they register what the voter wants done differently.
I expect the Greens to have a good set of locals next week.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats and the Conservatives a bit fewer; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats and the Conservatives a lot fewer. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
The more Starmer seems to saying, the more I’m inclined to vote LibDem. Or possibly Green; I haven’t forgotten tuition fees!
Does the Green party have any chance of winning the seat?
If not your vote isn't going to matter and you may as well save yourself 10 minutes and not bother voting.
Votes for minor parties are more effective than DNV or spoilt ballots (which presumably binned after a glance) as they register what the voter wants done differently.
I expect the Greens to have a good set of locals next week.
I expect them to do well in Essex, particularly mid Essex.
Indeed, we could see the majority of Essex councils out of Conservative control.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
But they don't actually start from how many seats parties have now either, it's a fresh election in every seat. So it depends whether you think people are more likely to end up voting how they voted last time, or more likely to end up voting how the polls say they would vote if there was an election tomorrow. With the election a year or more away, it's probably somewhere in between. Still Labour most seats more likely than not for now, odds probably about right.
Wow, he must be useless if even the DoH civil servants think he's incompetent.
So far as I can tell, his overriding objective is to meet budgetary targets. He doesn't seem interested in any other issue.
There is a case that if his civil servants don't like him, he is ok. You know how obstructive they can be.
Even if I subscribed to that view of the Civil Service (I don't), the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
"He must be good because everyone says he's an arsehole and a crap manager" is sadly not a novel argument, when advanced in support of this government. It's not entirely persuasive.
I see Russian have refocused their military efforts towards killing more civilians. (Not that they ever left off doing so.)
Russian forces attacked Kyiv and several other cities across Ukraine with more than 20 missiles and two drones early on Friday, killing at least eight people and demolishing residential and commercial buildings, officials said... https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1651837709130801154
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
Sure, other factors play a part, but ground game, incumbency, personal vote only make a few percent difference, and there are also counter arguments for negative incumbent votes. For all its faults UNS is a pretty good predictor of outcomes.
I expect polls to tighten over the next year as less engaged voters take interest, and for the Tory Locals results to not be as bad as some forecast. Nonetheless it is hard to see a Con government hanging on, even against the wooden, plodding Starmer.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
Exactly and there is the incumbency factor built up with public money pouring into the constituency with full time, paid staff, offices and equipment facilitating campaigning. It is not as egregious as it was in the days of Blair and Brown but it is still a big advantage. Some of the more diligent will survive when the swing says they shouldn’t. I think that you need to add 10-20 seats to the Tories to reflect this. Not enough for the Tories to survive but possibly enough to deny Labour an overall majority unless the SNP completely collapse.
I see Russian have refocused their military efforts towards killing more civilians. (Not that they ever left off doing so.)
Russian forces attacked Kyiv and several other cities across Ukraine with more than 20 missiles and two drones early on Friday, killing at least eight people and demolishing residential and commercial buildings, officials said... https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1651837709130801154
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
Sure, other factors play a part, but ground game, incumbency, personal vote only make a few percent difference, and there are also counter arguments for negative incumbent votes. For all its faults UNS is a pretty good predictor of outcomes.
I expect polls to tighten over the next year as less engaged voters take interest, and for the Tory Locals results to not be as bad as some forecast. Nonetheless it is hard to see a Con government hanging on, even against the wooden, plodding Starmer.
The whole point of UNS predicting outcomes is it is based on previous results in the seats!
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That’d be my guess too. Lots will probably just put it on in the background or whatever. Plenty of people who are not football fans still put the World Cup on. Similarly a lot of folk generally disinterested in royalty may well just flick it on out of a sense of curiosity or it’s-a-historic-event sort of thing.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
Only tv I’m watching May 6th is Liverpool v Brentford and the F1 qualifying.
Part of my romantic getaway that 3 day weekend.
Liverpool v Brentford doesn't sound hugely romantic.
Just come up with a revolutionary idea to transform cricket. Get rid of the boring old hundred, that takes forever. I propose the life changing Ninety.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to even the slightest implied criticism than men, as the end of my last six relationships has taught me.
(Though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to criticism than men (though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
A man has been hanged in Singapore for trafficking about two pounds of cannabis.
The execution of Tangaraju Suppiah is absolutely unnacceptable, and is at odds with a larger move in the world towards abolition of the death penalty. https://twitter.com/hrw/status/1651664318868381696
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to criticism than men (though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Exactly. They are point in time indicators. Currently indicating a very substantial majority for Labour. Sunak could change that, and predictions turn on how successful he will be in doing that. But he has to do the work. Hence my original.remark.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
Sure, other factors play a part, but ground game, incumbency, personal vote only make a few percent difference, and there are also counter arguments for negative incumbent votes. For all its faults UNS is a pretty good predictor of outcomes.
I expect polls to tighten over the next year as less engaged voters take interest, and for the Tory Locals results to not be as bad as some forecast. Nonetheless it is hard to see a Con government hanging on, even against the wooden, plodding Starmer.
The whole point of UNS predicting outcomes is it is based on previous results in the seats!
The various views expressed in the above differ only in perspective and which elements are prioritised. The facts, and future contingents, remain identical. Rather like the recent discussion of the cause(s) of WWI
My noter and several of the court staff, the macer (general dogsbody), jury attendant and production assistant, are on strike today. The court is carrying on but it is not the first time recently we have had strike action. There is more of this than gets into the headlines for high profile staff like doctors. Fortunately, we got the witnesses finished yesterday but other courts are going to struggle with witnesses and no one to make sure that they are in the right place at the right time.
Sunak needs to learn about underpromising and over delivering, part I.
No surprise that Badenoch is all fart and no follow through as well.
Well it was a completely mad aim to scrap all EU law within a year.
The vast majority of "EU laws" were regulations to align the single market. Most companies will still have to adhere to these anyway if they export to anywhere in the EU
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
Sure, other factors play a part, but ground game, incumbency, personal vote only make a few percent difference, and there are also counter arguments for negative incumbent votes. For all its faults UNS is a pretty good predictor of outcomes.
I expect polls to tighten over the next year as less engaged voters take interest, and for the Tory Locals results to not be as bad as some forecast. Nonetheless it is hard to see a Con government hanging on, even against the wooden, plodding Starmer.
The whole point of UNS predicting outcomes is it is based on previous results in the seats!
And UNS at the moment predicts a substantial Labour majority.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to even the slightest implied criticism than men, as the end of my last six relationships has taught me.
(Though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
Have I just slipped in a time warp back to c1955 or has this site been taken over by the Brexit Party or some other dinosaur organisation?
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to criticism than men (though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to even the slightest implied criticism than men, as the end of my last six relationships has taught me.
(Though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
I’m not sure this post is saying what you think it is saying.
A man has been hanged in Singapore for trafficking about two pounds of cannabis.
The execution of Tangaraju Suppiah is absolutely unnacceptable, and is at odds with a larger move in the world towards abolition of the death penalty. https://twitter.com/hrw/status/1651664318868381696
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Exactly. They are point in time indicators. Currently indicating a very substantial majority for Labour. Sunak could change that, and predictions turn on how successful he will be in doing that. But he has to do the work. Hence my original.remark.
But your original remark assumes a clean slate every time. Which is simply not the case.
I'm starting to feel a thread header coming on although with the amount of work I've got right now goodness only knows when I would have time to write it.
A man has been hanged in Singapore for trafficking about two pounds of cannabis.
The execution of Tangaraju Suppiah is absolutely unnacceptable, and is at odds with a larger move in the world towards abolition of the death penalty. https://twitter.com/hrw/status/1651664318868381696
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to criticism than men (though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
Women are more coachable overall than men (score of 75 vs. 71 on a scale from 0 to 100) Women are better at handling criticism (74 vs. 69) Women are more open to learning and improvement (85 vs. 81) Women are more willing to take direction (70 vs. 67)
2% of women vs. 7% of men believe that they don’t have any weaknesses. 3% of women vs. 10% of men think that performance evaluations are a waste of time, because they are already good at what they do. 5% of women vs.11% of men will immediately shut down and stop listening as soon as they hear a negative comment about their work. (This is why nagging is a waste of time). 7% of women vs. 16% of men admit that they exaggerate or over-estimate their professional skills. 9% of women vs. 22% of men believe that they are much more knowledgeable than most people. 10% of women vs. 25% of men believe that there is no point in pursuing a goal if you need other people’s help to achieve it. 19% of women vs. 27% of men don’t like admitting to others when they are having difficulty understand something, or are unfamiliar with the topic of conversation. 85% of women vs. 79% of men are open to advice and suggestions from their manager. If asked to list their faults, 10% of women and15% of men would have a hard time coming up with any.
During a performance review: 5% of women vs.12% of men threatened to quit after a performance review. 5% of women vs. 10% of men actually quit after a performance review. 13% of women vs. 30% of men told the critic that he/she is “wrong” or “misinformed”. 25% of women vs. 34% of men agreed to improve/implement changes but never followed through. 27% of women vs. 41% of men openly disagreed with the feedback they received.
You can imagine how the Civil Service would hate a micro-manager.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
Someone at the top of an organisation really shouldn’t be micromanaging though.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
The actual article says that there are a few 'officials' in the civil service complaining about his 'management style', that he is creating an unpleasant atmosphere and there are unreasonable demands for 'data'. It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
I think it's also due to having more women in the workplace, as women tend to be much more sensitive to even the slightest implied criticism than men, as the end of my last six relationships has taught me.
(Though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
I’m going to go for a wild stab here and suggest that perhaps it’s you? 😂
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
Actually people are forgetting just how far behind the Conservatives start from, as of today.
But they don't, do they?
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
If there is an election today Labour will.win a majority of about 150 seats. Elections are a zero sum exercises. If Labour get some more votes than the Conservatives, they will get some more seats; if they get more again votes., they will get a lot more seats. The seat distribution last time is irrelevant.
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
They really will not. Elections are anything but zero sum games. Incumbency, resource spread, candidate quality, local factors, vote stickiness all play significant parts in the outcome. It is much harder to take a seat than to hold it, and it takes a lot of effort.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Exactly. They are point in time indicators. Currently indicating a very substantial majority for Labour. Sunak could change that, and predictions turn on how successful he will be in doing that. But he has to do the work. Hence my original.remark.
But your original remark assumes a clean slate every time. Which is simply not the case.
I'm starting to feel a thread header coming on although with the amount of work I've got right now goodness only knows when I would have time to write it.
Actually it is more or less a clean sheet every time because competitive first past the post elections make it so. But definitely interested in your header if you have the time to write it. I may realise I got it wrong!
Yes. At the risk of being repetitive, MPs who choose Boris Actual Johnson to be prime minister aren't well-placed to criticise other people's HR processes.
A man has been hanged in Singapore for trafficking about two pounds of cannabis.
The execution of Tangaraju Suppiah is absolutely unnacceptable, and is at odds with a larger move in the world towards abolition of the death penalty. https://twitter.com/hrw/status/1651664318868381696
Outrageous.
Recall "Singapore on Thames".
He was hanged on the Thames?
I am not in favour of the death penalty, although certain acts try that sentiment very much (the murder o Sarah everard for instance). But this man committed a crime in a nation with the death penalty for drug smuggling. He took the risk. He was caught and suffered the consequences.
Making allusions to Singaporean business culture and practice and linking to the death penalty is some stretch.
It doesn't look like getting ditched - just turning it into a T20 competition. Which would be better. But there is already a perfectly good one of those.
Indeed, I'm going to buy my tickets to watch Lancashire in the T20 today. It's hard to get excited about going to watch 'Manchester'.
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour 13.4 million watched Party at the Palace 16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
Comments
8.7 million watched the trooping of the colour
13.4 million watched Party at the Palace
16.75 million took part in a community event
So about one in four of the population.
It's a plurality because they were the most popular/watched TV shows at the time, and more people were celebrating than doing any other one activity - even if not an absolute majority of the population. Many more caught highlights later. There would also have been school and other institutional celebrations as well, as well as private ones that did not show up in the figures. All in all I suspect a third of the population did something.
I expect viewing numbers for the Coronation to be similar and about 10 million+ to watch it live, and a higher number on highlights later.
That would not make Labour the largest party but it would make it impossible for Sunak to continue.
But that's (a) a guess and (b) there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge yet.
No surprise that Badenoch is all fart and no follow through as well.
Whatever the actual viewing figures, I’m sure there’ll be plenty for all sides to interpret in whichever way fits their pre-existing views
Part of my romantic getaway that 3 day weekend.
There doesn't seem much empirical evidence of deterrence by the governments Rwanda policy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days
I otherwise never touch, watch or read about football and simply ignore anyone who does.
Starmer's not exactly Tony Blair, is he?
Always disappointing when that happens.
Hating how he is on top of their inadequacies must be the most serious reason for wanting to get rid of a Minister.
As some on the robust right here have pointed out, this scheme can only be effective if every boat person is pinged to Rwanda until the message gets through, which will take time. And there's little sign of that happening- not just because of law but also because of system capacity.
Morally, which is better? Doing something bloodcurdling, or promising to do something bloodcurdling in the knowledge that you won't be able to do it?
The more Starmer seems to saying, the more I’m inclined to vote LibDem. Or possibly Green; I haven’t forgotten tuition fees!
https://twitter.com/i/lists/1498457571216134144
They start from 160 seats ahead.
Polls are not where elections start from in this country.
Family meant I stopped following it as much, which cost me a (pretty minor, tbf) revenue stream. Political betting, otoh, I’m a net loser.
Occam’s razor here, I think. People realising that shit ministers are shit. We’re thirteen years into a Tory government that has slowly worn down its talent base to a nub, thanks to the preference for loyalty over ability. I wouldn’t trust Barclay or Raab with a coffee run.
It isn't just that the Tories have been reduced to culture wars and racism. Its that with even moderate Tories (and Mince too - cf Jonathan "Brains" Gullis attacking Braverman) getting that skin-crawling feeling about their policies and pronouncements, and BNP style rejects ramping them on social media and GBeebies, you have to pinch your nose quite hard to want to vote for *that*.
I honestly think we will see a big drop in turnout, especially in some of the red wall seats where they have been led up the garden path and then let down the hardest. Lab to UKIP to Tory voters likely to stay home, taking a chunk off the Tory tally leaving Labour to walk through comfortably. And similar in the blue wall, with LD instead of Labour in many seats.
People just aren't as amoral as the worst of today's Tories hope.
Also I think we're in something of a 1979 Winter of Discontent situation, where there's a perception the country doesn't work properly and the incumbent government are driven by ideology rather than competence. Even Sunak somewhat fits the analogy as, like Callaghan he is more popular than his party.
Strikes me, he is a man who has made up his mind irrespective of the facts.
If not your vote isn't going to matter and you may as well save yourself 10 minutes and not bother voting.
King’s coronation to be a beacon of inclusion and diversity
The ex-children’s television presenter Baroness Benjamin, a female Royal Navy petty officer and a former actor from The Archers are among those with historic roles in a coronation hailed for promoting “diversity and inclusion”.
The service at Westminster Abbey will feature several women of colour, including Baroness Amos, Dame Elizabeth Anionwu and the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin.
As forecast by The Times, there will be an abbey procession of leaders of other faiths, while peers from the four main non-Christian faiths — Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Jewish — will present regalia to the King. Lady Benjamin, who will carry regalia to the altar, said: “I feel honoured and privileged to be part of the historic Coronation ceremony. To be selected to carry the Sovereign’s Sceptre with Dove, which represents spirituality, equity and mercy, is for me very symbolic as it sends out a clear message that diversity and inclusion is being embraced.”
The former nurse Lady Anionwu, who together with Lady Benjamin was one of the last members of the Order of Merit chosen by the Queen, will carry the Orb. As well as attempting to reflect racial diversity, the ceremony will be more socially inclusive than any coronation that has gone before. Petty Officer Amy Taylor will be the first woman to bear the Jewelled Sword of Offering into the Abbey. She has been selected to represent servicemen and women in a tribute to the King’s military career. She said: “Having served most of my senior career as an aircraft engineer on 845 Naval Air Squadron at RNAS Yeovilton where His Majesty originally trained and served as a pilot, I am deeply honoured and humbled to play my part in this historic event.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/king-charles-coronation-famous-roles-royal-regalia-inclusion-diversity-3x9827g90
That doesn't mean it' was a sane plan but it was better than suing the union next week...
F1: concise take on the weekend format: https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/04/sprint-race-shenanigans.html
Essentially, qualifying today at 2pm is stupid. I'll probably only do pre-race and maybe a post-race ramble.
It's probably just Starmer vs Sunak.
It would all have been considered rather laughable and pathetic until a few months (days? even) ago.
Perhaps in the end though this just goes down to 'gen Z' and its influence, and the breakdown of heirarchy and order. They feel they can make these criticisms and in doing so have little regard to conventions, the civil service code, their employment contract etc.
https://talksport.com/sport/motorsport/1405529/fernando-alonso-taylor-swift-lando-norris-margot-robbie-f1-dating-rumours/
https://youtu.be/94HFMSm-JBo
But they don't. They fail relentlessly, and get promoted to the next job until scandal hits or they fall out with their leader over something or other.
Perhaps its a massive conspiracy. Or perhaps we have simply elected quite a few incompetent ministers who don't have a clue what they are doing.
I expect the Greens to have a good set of locals next week.
Oh.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1556590394170818560
It's.entirely possible Sunak will be able to reduce or even overturn the current Labour advantage. But the starting point, as of today, is a large Labour majority verging on a landslide. That's simply a mechanic of the electoral system.
Indeed, we could see the majority of Essex councils out of Conservative control.
Even in 1945, which comes closest, the Conservatives were able to keep Labour's majority to 146. In 1997, Labour won a majority of 179. A similar swing today would see them win a majority of exactly one.
And polls are not starting points. They are indicators.
Focus on the swings required, and use the polls as a guide to where they will lead.
It's not entirely persuasive.
(Not that they ever left off doing so.)
Russian forces attacked Kyiv and several other cities across Ukraine with more than 20 missiles and two drones early on Friday, killing at least eight people and demolishing residential and commercial buildings, officials said...
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1651837709130801154
I expect polls to tighten over the next year as less engaged voters take interest, and for the Tory Locals results to not be as bad as some forecast. Nonetheless it is hard to see a Con government hanging on, even against the wooden, plodding Starmer.
Some of the more diligent will survive when the swing says they shouldn’t.
I think that you need to add 10-20 seats to the Tories to reflect this. Not enough for the Tories to survive but possibly enough to deny Labour an overall majority unless the SNP completely collapse.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-12022119/The-faces-chop-talks-taking-place-turning-competition-T20-event.html
(Though yes of course there are sensitive men and tough women).
The execution of Tangaraju Suppiah is absolutely unnacceptable, and is at odds with a larger move in the world towards abolition of the death penalty.
https://twitter.com/hrw/status/1651664318868381696
Ftfy.
Exactly. They are point in time indicators. Currently indicating a very substantial majority for Labour. Sunak could change that, and predictions turn on how successful he will be in doing that. But he has to do the work. Hence my original.remark.
Fortunately, we got the witnesses finished yesterday but other courts are going to struggle with witnesses and no one to make sure that they are in the right place at the right time.
Senate GOP blocks Equal Rights Amendment
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3975654-senate-gop-blocks-equal-rights-amendment/
I'm starting to feel a thread header coming on although with the amount of work I've got right now goodness only knows when I would have time to write it.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11671488.htm
Here’s how men and women compared:
Women are more coachable overall than men (score of 75 vs. 71 on a scale from 0 to 100)
Women are better at handling criticism (74 vs. 69)
Women are more open to learning and improvement (85 vs. 81)
Women are more willing to take direction (70 vs. 67)
2% of women vs. 7% of men believe that they don’t have any weaknesses.
3% of women vs. 10% of men think that performance evaluations are a waste of time, because they are already good at what they do.
5% of women vs.11% of men will immediately shut down and stop listening as soon as they hear a negative comment about their work. (This is why nagging is a waste of time).
7% of women vs. 16% of men admit that they exaggerate or over-estimate their professional skills.
9% of women vs. 22% of men believe that they are much more knowledgeable than most people.
10% of women vs. 25% of men believe that there is no point in pursuing a goal if you need other people’s help to achieve it.
19% of women vs. 27% of men don’t like admitting to others when they are having difficulty understand something, or are unfamiliar with the topic of conversation.
85% of women vs. 79% of men are open to advice and suggestions from their manager.
If asked to list their faults, 10% of women and15% of men would have a hard time coming up with any.
During a performance review:
5% of women vs.12% of men threatened to quit after a performance review.
5% of women vs. 10% of men actually quit after a performance review.
13% of women vs. 30% of men told the critic that he/she is “wrong” or “misinformed”.
25% of women vs. 34% of men agreed to improve/implement changes but never followed through.
27% of women vs. 41% of men openly disagreed with the feedback they received.
"People are still trapped under the rubble," President Zelensky said about the Uman attack.
Just 2 days ago, China's XI urged Zelensky to negotiate with Putin.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1651858734119899142
Uman is a small town many hundreds of km from the front. Best known as a pilgrimage site for Hasidic Jews.
Yes. At the risk of being repetitive, MPs who choose Boris Actual Johnson to be prime minister aren't well-placed to criticise other people's HR processes.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1651854432135413761
I am not in favour of the death penalty, although certain acts try that sentiment very much (the murder o Sarah everard for instance). But this man committed a crime in a nation with the death penalty for drug smuggling. He took the risk. He was caught and suffered the consequences.
Making allusions to Singaporean business culture and practice and linking to the death penalty is some stretch.
Which would be better. But there is already a perfectly good one of those.
Indeed, I'm going to buy my tickets to watch Lancashire in the T20 today.
It's hard to get excited about going to watch 'Manchester'.