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.
A lot of those are so close as to be no big difference. But my perception is men are bigger snowflakes.
unless they let you grab them by the pussy no doubt
The entire text of the amendment that would change the Constitution, passed by Congress in the seventies, final ratification blocked by conservatives ever since.
"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
I partly agree with this. We have had a revolution in British political realities over the last decade. Things that were utterly impossible now happen on a regular basis. Party loyalty does feel like one of those - is a prospective 2024 voter supposed to be loyal; to a party very substantially different to the 2019 version?
Incumbency only works so far. Especially when the incumbent is a 2019 entry moron. I expect to see an awful lot of ex-MPs after the election.
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
There seems no military value to such attacks, not like when they were trying to wreck the energy infrastructure, and its sporadic and comparatively low in number despite it still having a deadly and therefore unnerving effect to a degree. So it really does look like nothing more than ineffective terrorism.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
I suspect he would be pretty happy being a normal dry Thatcherite- cut the deficit then cut taxes through an eternal squeeze on the public sector. Highly Eurosceptic, but very specific, limited and tactical in his divergences. (Personally, I'm unconvinced that there are any Eurodivergences that make sense even on a tactical basis, but that's not the point here.)
Unfortunately, he leads a party that doesn't want those things really. I mean, they want the tax cuts, but not the pain that will accompany them if they happen in a sound money way. And they want Eurodivergence as a matter of principle.
So Sunak has to keep throwing the hungry dog a rubber bone. We saw it with the EU Shredder promise, I suspect we're seeing it with the Tough On Boats policy. We saw it in a slightly different way with the Windsor Agreement.
I'm all for realism over unrealism. And the feebleness of the ERG rebellion over Windsor might show that they are an increasingly toothless old cur. But making dumb promises to appease the dumb and then rowing back on them is unlikely to work well indefinitely.
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
Approx 1 in 3 people who vote in a British general election vote differently to the previous one*. Volatile.
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
Approx 1 in 3 people who vote in a British general election vote differently to the previous one*. Volatile.
* Source: Read it the other day somewhere.
And from your source, have you any idea how that has changed over time? My guess is that it is rather higher than it was 20 years ago and much higher than it was 40 years ago. But you're the man with the source.
The ideal government in my opinion would be a Con-LibDem Coalition with a green agenda, and if I can nudge the ship of state in this direction by voting Green at the parish council election I will do so. I'm particularly exercised by the plight of endangered species so in the general election I shall continue to vote for Sir Jeremy Wright because he's one of the last of the few sane Tories roaming the wilderness. We'll miss them when they're gone.
The ideal government in my opinion would be a Con-LibDem Coalition with a green agenda, and if I can nudge the ship of state in this direction by voting Green at the parish council election I will do so. I'm particularly exercised by the plight of endangered species so in the general election I shall continue to vote for Sir Jeremy Wright because he's one of the last of the few sane Tories roaming the wilderness. We'll miss them when they're gone.
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.
In Independent controlled Uttlesford and LD controlled Chelmsford the Conservatives could actually gain seats. Though Labour will likely gain some seats in Conservative controlled councils in Essex
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
15 to 20 million viewers, certainly once including catch up for the coronation
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
Indeed, I expect many voters who voted Labour or UKIP in 2015 but for Boris in 2019 will vote Labour or RefUK now. However some voters who voted LD in 2019 will now vote for Sunak's Tories as well as Starmer Labour
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
Approx 1 in 3 people who vote in a British general election vote differently to the previous one*. Volatile.
* Source: Read it the other day somewhere.
And from your source, have you any idea how that has changed over time? My guess is that it is rather higher than it was 20 years ago and much higher than it was 40 years ago. But you're the man with the source.
What I can't quickly find is numbers for those who flip between voting and not voting. (See the Conservatives who didn't go Lib or Lab in 1997, or the Labourites who simply couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn in 2019. It must be buried somewhere in the BES.)
The ideal government in my opinion would be a Con-LibDem Coalition with a green agenda, and if I can nudge the ship of state in this direction by voting Green at the parish council election I will do so. I'm particularly exercised by the plight of endangered species so in the general election I shall continue to vote for Sir Jeremy Wright because he's one of the last of the few sane Tories roaming the wilderness. We'll miss them when they're gone.
I first knew Jeremy pre knighthood or election to Parliament when he was chairman of Warwick and Leamington Conservatives and I was CF chair when at Warwick University
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
15 to 20 million viewers, certainly once including catch up for the coronation
I expect you're right. But I do marvel at the thought of those who watch the coronation on catch-up. It isn't Taskmaster - you don't watch it to be entertained. If you are keen on that sort of thing, you watch it to watch a moment in history happening right now. Once it's happened, why bother?
If anyone intends to watch the coronation on catch up I would be fascinated to hear why.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
It's irrelevant to the law of that country. I have sympathy for the chap, but he chose to break a law with the risk of hanging as consequence.
Yes but it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of it. And also looking for our own governments and companies to question whether we consider such "justice" to be proportional and therefore whether we pressure them to take a different approach to judicial murder
Personally, I'm unconvinced that there are any Eurodivergences that make sense even on a tactical basis, but that's not the point here.
To pick up on your aside I'm surprised by this view. Putting to one side the entertaining agitprop of the eternal search for the mythical benefits of Brexit, I would think it would be inevitable that there were divergences Britain could now implement to its benefit.
Speaking from a purely theoretical basis, a rather utilitarian view of the EU was that it was a mechanism for settling disputes between independent European nation states. As such it necessarily involves a degree of compromise.
I'd say I was a big fan of compromise roughly half the time, but it does involve doing something you'd rather not do, in exchange for someone else doing the same. So it follows that we're now free not to stick to these compromises (at the cost of others being free of their obligations towards us).
The very worst situation Britain could be in right now would be to see other countries acting with freedom from the obligations they were previously under towards us, while we were unable or unwilling to act in a similar way. We would have paid all of the price for leaving and received none of the benefit for doing so.
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
15 to 20 million viewers, certainly once including catch up for the coronation
Possibly so, I will just watch the highlights later on the news. That archaic Ruritarian gobbledygook in the Abbey is anathema to my Puritan heart.
People like weddings more than other church occasions as there is an optimism and relatability to them. Indeed often weddings and funerals are the only time they go, so I think viewing figures will be lower than William's or Harry's weddings, or the Queen's funeral. Still will be high though.
The ideal government in my opinion would be a Con-LibDem Coalition with a green agenda, and if I can nudge the ship of state in this direction by voting Green at the parish council election I will do so. I'm particularly exercised by the plight of endangered species so in the general election I shall continue to vote for Sir Jeremy Wright because he's one of the last of the few sane Tories roaming the wilderness. We'll miss them when they're gone.
There is zero chance of this: 1. Tories are against the green agenda now that Boris has gone. Too much money to be made opposing wind and solar and polluting our rivers and beaches 2. LibDems will not do a coalition with the Tories again in a hurry, especially not *this* Tory party
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
There seems no military value to such attacks, not like when they were trying to wreck the energy infrastructure, and its sporadic and comparatively low in number despite it still having a deadly and therefore unnerving effect to a degree. So it really does look like nothing more than ineffective terrorism.
Russia is a psychopath state. It is horrific to think it, but I do believe they do it because they enjoy inflicting misery on their enemy, whether it has military advantage or not.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
The ideal government in my opinion would be a Con-LibDem Coalition with a green agenda, and if I can nudge the ship of state in this direction by voting Green at the parish council election I will do so. I'm particularly exercised by the plight of endangered species so in the general election I shall continue to vote for Sir Jeremy Wright because he's one of the last of the few sane Tories roaming the wilderness. We'll miss them when they're gone.
I first knew Jeremy pre knighthood or election to Parliament when he was chairman of Warwick and Leamington Conservatives and I was CF chair when at Warwick University
It was his piece in the local paper that persuaded me to vote Remain. Now he festers on the back benches where there's enough talent to fill two or three cabinets while on the front bench there isn't enough for one.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
Standing for Harborough District Council in Leicestershire (existing council C 22, Lib Dem 11, Lab 1) - people actually coming up to me in the supermarket (Waitrose naturally) saying will be voting for me. Chap came out his house to tell me that he usually votes Conservative but all 3 will be voting Lib Dem -this time. Quote: "13 years is long enough".
Am fighting harder this time - as are others locally - only the Lib Dems have put up a full slate of candidates. More leaflets and some actual canvassing. Reaction feels like it was in the 3 parliamentary by-elections that the Lib Dems won. Quite unlike last time -2019 when these seats last fought. (C 52%, Lib Dem (me) 39%, Lab 8%).
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
The original form of cannabis is fairly benign. The super strength skunk stuff seems to have some serious issues.
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
Sending stuff to Romania saga happy ending. DHL dispatch of the spare certificate was delivered efficiently (flights Aberdeen to East Midlands to Leipzig to Budapest to Cluj Napoca). Client now happy, Romanian taxman now happy, payment of £large to be made next week.
Moral of the story. That is the last important anything I am ever sending with Royal Mail.
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
15 to 20 million viewers, certainly once including catch up for the coronation
Possibly so, I will just watch the highlights later on the news. That archaic Ruritarian gobbledygook in the Abbey is anathema to my Puritan heart.
People like weddings more than other church occasions as there is an optimism and relatability to them. Indeed often weddings and funerals are the only time they go, so I think viewing figures will be lower than William's or Harry's weddings, or the Queen's funeral. Still will be high though.
Harry's wedding was nearly 18 million, which I think was pretty good going for the then sixth in line to the throne.
There hasn't been a coronation for seventy years. The oldest surviving member of my family was only seven at the time. I think you'll get a lot of people, including lukewarm republicans, turning on to watch it for the novelty value.
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
15 to 20 million viewers, certainly once including catch up for the coronation
Possibly so, I will just watch the highlights later on the news. That archaic Ruritarian gobbledygook in the Abbey is anathema to my Puritan heart.
People like weddings more than other church occasions as there is an optimism and relatability to them. Indeed often weddings and funerals are the only time they go, so I think viewing figures will be lower than William's or Harry's weddings, or the Queen's funeral. Still will be high though.
My guess is that many people will treat the day like a spare Sunday. Maybe watch the Coronation in the morning (timing is perfect for a lazy start), wander out to a late lunch later etc.
The ideal government in my opinion would be a Con-LibDem Coalition with a green agenda, and if I can nudge the ship of state in this direction by voting Green at the parish council election I will do so. I'm particularly exercised by the plight of endangered species so in the general election I shall continue to vote for Sir Jeremy Wright because he's one of the last of the few sane Tories roaming the wilderness. We'll miss them when they're gone.
There is zero chance of this: 1. Tories are against the green agenda now that Boris has gone. Too much money to be made opposing wind and solar and polluting our rivers and beaches 2. LibDems will not do a coalition with the Tories again in a hurry, especially not *this* Tory party
I agree with 2, but not necessarily 1. It depends what you mean by a "green agenda". A lot of/most Tories are in favour of clean beaches. As for solar and wind, some Tories (and many LDs) oppose on NIMBY grounds, but often because many onshore wind farms are questionable in efficiency and the small energy generation does not outweigh unsightliness. Many lefty greenies are simply in favour because they see wind farms as totemic rather than efficient, and possibly because they piss off people they hate.
I think it is quite possible to be right of centre and "green", it just has a different emphasis to the lefty agenda where greenery is used as a desperate attempt to wage class war and attack capitalism.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
The original form of cannabis is fairly benign. The super strength skunk stuff seems to have some serious issues.
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
I have seen too many lives ruined by cannabis to consider it benign. I have become much more harsh on drugs over the years.
I would support decriminalisation of small amounts, with civil fines that are cancelled on attendance for treatment. Our mental health services couldn't cope with the demand though.
Personally, I'm unconvinced that there are any Eurodivergences that make sense even on a tactical basis, but that's not the point here.
To pick up on your aside I'm surprised by this view. Putting to one side the entertaining agitprop of the eternal search for the mythical benefits of Brexit, I would think it would be inevitable that there were divergences Britain could now implement to its benefit.
Speaking from a purely theoretical basis, a rather utilitarian view of the EU was that it was a mechanism for settling disputes between independent European nation states. As such it necessarily involves a degree of compromise.
I'd say I was a big fan of compromise roughly half the time, but it does involve doing something you'd rather not do, in exchange for someone else doing the same. So it follows that we're now free not to stick to these compromises (at the cost of others being free of their obligations towards us).
The very worst situation Britain could be in right now would be to see other countries acting with freedom from the obligations they were previously under towards us, while we were unable or unwilling to act in a similar way. We would have paid all of the price for leaving and received none of the benefit for doing so.
It's a fair question, and I'm not sure how certain I am in my answer; but I think there are a few strands that point that way.
For a start, we're nearly seven years after the vote, and I don't think anyone has come up with a Euroreg whose repeal is unambiguously a benefit. There are lots of cases of individuals and businesses wanting X to happen, but X usually turns out to be unpopular, Europe or no Europe.
Then (and for me, this is the key one), you get benefits from doing the same things across a wide market. One production line instead of two, that sort of thing. Divergence would have to be pretty rewarding to overcome that, and I'm not seeing where the big reward divergences are. (That may be due to my being a provincial science master, of course.)
Finally, for all it might not look like it here and now, by instinct I'm conservative. Unless it's necessary to change, it's necessary not to change and all that. Unless they're utter abominations, stick with the existing rules.
And yes, a Brexit where we just tag along behind the EU is pointless and worse than the alternative on offer in 2016. Norway and Switzerland do that in many fields, but they are very clear about what freedoms they have carved out and that they are worth having. The UK hasn't done that, and perhaps is to big and heterogeneous to do that. But what's done is done.
Yep, that's the obnvious next step, to be followed by the abolition of the Blast, swiftly to be followed by the extinction of the smaller counties - potentially all the ones without Test grounds.
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
15 to 20 million viewers, certainly once including catch up for the coronation
I expect you're right. But I do marvel at the thought of those who watch the coronation on catch-up. It isn't Taskmaster - you don't watch it to be entertained. If you are keen on that sort of thing, you watch it to watch a moment in history happening right now. Once it's happened, why bother?
If anyone intends to watch the coronation on catch up I would be fascinated to hear why.
We will be but only because we will be going up to Westminster on the Saturday morning to cheer the King and Queen and boo Republic
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.
That assumes that it's always the Minister who is at fault.......
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
The original form of cannabis is fairly benign. The super strength skunk stuff seems to have some serious issues.
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
I have seen too many lives ruined by cannabis to consider it benign. I have become much more harsh on drugs over the years.
I would support decriminalisation of small amounts, with civil fines that are cancelled on attendance for treatment. Our mental health services couldn't cope with the demand though.
I always find you reasonable, Foxy, but I would say far more lives have been ruined by criminalisation and the black market.The most common forms over the last 30 years have up 15-20 % more THC than before. Several of the casualties you will have seen will have been the result of this.
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.
I'll go for five million. It's still a lot.
Coronations are rarer than weddings, and the weddings got a much larger audience. I don't think many people will be put off by it being Charles. Those who will watch will be watching for the sake of the occasion, rather than for the identity of the central figure.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
15 to 20 million viewers, certainly once including catch up for the coronation
I expect you're right. But I do marvel at the thought of those who watch the coronation on catch-up. It isn't Taskmaster - you don't watch it to be entertained. If you are keen on that sort of thing, you watch it to watch a moment in history happening right now. Once it's happened, why bother?
If anyone intends to watch the coronation on catch up I would be fascinated to hear why.
We will be but only because we will be going up to Westminster on the Saturday morning to cheer the King and Queen and boo Republic
Ha - fair point - watching it on catchup because you're celebrating it in other ways at the same time.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
The original form of cannabis is fairly benign. The super strength skunk stuff seems to have some serious issues.
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
I have seen too many lives ruined by cannabis to consider it benign. I have become much more harsh on drugs over the years.
I would support decriminalisation of small amounts, with civil fines that are cancelled on attendance for treatment. Our mental health services couldn't cope with the demand though.
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
Approx 1 in 3 people who vote in a British general election vote differently to the previous one*. Volatile.
* Source: Read it the other day somewhere.
Interesting, if accurate.
Thinking of myself, in GEs since I turned 18, all in different parliamentary constituencies (I've moved a fair bit) 2001 - Con (Con-Lab fairly marginal) 2005 - LD (LDs took seat from Lab) 2010 - LD (Looked safe Lab, Cons almost took it - I would have voted Lab tactically if I'd expected it to be close) 2015 - Lab (Safe Lab seat) 2019 - Green (Safe Con seat)
So, I - reasonably politically aware - have changed in 3/4 of opportunities to change. I can believe 1/3 overall with less fixed (in the sense of 'we always vote X') politics now
I voted for the party I wanted to win in the first four of those, although I would have voted tactically in 2010 had a believed it was in play. In 2019, in a safe seat, I voted Green to signal support for 'green crap' issues. I'd voted LD if they'd been in with any shout - or probably if they'd had a better leader/campaign and not made the cancel Brexit without a referendum pledge and I'd have rather had a LD than Green government.
There's a chance with boundary changes that my seat at next GE (which otherwise wil be the same as GE2019 seat) might give Lab an outside chance, so I'll probably be looking at a tactical Lab vote. I'd likely be back to LD in a seat where they had a chance.
ETA: Looks like quite the journey from right -> left there! The 2001 me was a different person, influenced still by my parents. I don't think I could have voted Lab in 2019 in an in-play seat with Corbyn in charge and I wouldn't want a (current) Green Party government.
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Nor Tories in Brighton either now, two Parliamentary seats in the city Labour, the other Green. Brighton has a Green led city council and the Tories are just third in terms of councillors behind Labour
What is your take HY, on what happens in Leicester at the local election? An article (on ConHome I think) suggested Tories sweeping Labour out the city in a night of triumph.
One thing we havn’t touched on much on PB, is how Rishi’s Indian heritage sucks in more Tory voters excited about that, completely changing the dynamic in some places giving Tory’s unexpected wins.
When I say unexpected wins, I guess this is a proper politicalbetting post.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
The original form of cannabis is fairly benign. The super strength skunk stuff seems to have some serious issues.
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
I have seen too many lives ruined by cannabis to consider it benign. I have become much more harsh on drugs over the years.
I would support decriminalisation of small amounts, with civil fines that are cancelled on attendance for treatment. Our mental health services couldn't cope with the demand though.
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.
It’s a lot more exciting than the extreme dressage you are into
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Nor Tories in Brighton either now, two Parliamentary seats in the city Labour, the other Green
Yes, I'm in Brighton Kemptown, a Tory seat as recently as 2015. The Tories have disappeared completely, even though Lloyd Russell-Moyle is the MP. We've had no communication from Tories for the local elections.
Sending stuff to Romania saga happy ending. DHL dispatch of the spare certificate was delivered efficiently (flights Aberdeen to East Midlands to Leipzig to Budapest to Cluj Napoca). Client now happy, Romanian taxman now happy, payment of £large to be made next week.
Moral of the story. That is the last important anything I am ever sending with Royal Mail.
The moral of the story ought to be: look after your IT infrastructure. Royal Mail still has not recovered from being hacked over three months ago.
What is your take HY, on what happens in Leicester at the local election? An article (on ConHome I think) suggested Tories sweeping Labour out the city in a night of triumph.
One thing we havn’t touched on much on PB, is how Rishi’s Indian heritage sucks in more Tory voters excited about that, completely changing the dynamic in some places giving Tory’s unexpected wins.
When I say unexpected wins, I guess this is a proper politicalbetting post.
I doubt the Tories will win it but it could see a rare pro Tory swing because of the Hindu vote. Remember Bradford West in 1997 had the only swing to the Tories in the UK due to ethnic factors
The ideal government in my opinion would be a Con-LibDem Coalition with a green agenda, and if I can nudge the ship of state in this direction by voting Green at the parish council election I will do so. I'm particularly exercised by the plight of endangered species so in the general election I shall continue to vote for Sir Jeremy Wright because he's one of the last of the few sane Tories roaming the wilderness. We'll miss them when they're gone.
There is zero chance of this: 1. Tories are against the green agenda now that Boris has gone. Too much money to be made opposing wind and solar and polluting our rivers and beaches 2. LibDems will not do a coalition with the Tories again in a hurry, especially not *this* Tory party
I agree with 2, but not necessarily 1. It depends what you mean by a "green agenda". A lot of/most Tories are in favour of clean beaches. As for solar and wind, some Tories (and many LDs) oppose on NIMBY grounds, but often because many onshore wind farms are questionable in efficiency and the small energy generation does not outweigh unsightliness. Many lefty greenies are simply in favour because they see wind farms as totemic rather than efficient, and possibly because they piss off people they hate.
I think it is quite possible to be right of centre and "green", it just has a different emphasis to the lefty agenda where greenery is used as a desperate attempt to wage class war and attack capitalism.
I entirely agree that you can be right of centre and green! Its just that the current iteration is more brown than green. What makes it even more reprehensible is that as they take their water industry bungs and legislate to allow more turds onto our beaches they try and claim they are doing the opposite.
I know that most people don't understand politics. But they understand raw sewage. I just don't understand the government on this, both in terms of the policy and the politics.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
The original form of cannabis is fairly benign. The super strength skunk stuff seems to have some serious issues.
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
I have seen too many lives ruined by cannabis to consider it benign. I have become much more harsh on drugs over the years.
I would support decriminalisation of small amounts, with civil fines that are cancelled on attendance for treatment. Our mental health services couldn't cope with the demand though.
JBM is that rare thing - a data cruncher in the mainstream media who apparently prefers to get the truth rather than a desired answer and also seems to know what he's doing.
Sharp has resigned because he is found to have "inadvertently" (his defence) failed to disclose relevant potential conflicts of interest to the appointment panel. The Inquiry is not persuaded by his defence.
So, a shift away from dodgy appointments rather than a shift to the left, I think you'll find.
Good attempt to sully the PM's name. Alternatively people might look at this and say Rishi didn't appoint him and didn't try to do him a favour as a mate.
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Nor Tories in Brighton either now, two Parliamentary seats in the city Labour, the other Green
Yes, I'm in Brighton Kemptown, a Tory seat as recently as 2015. The Tories have disappeared completely, even though Lloyd Russell-Moyle is the MP. We've had no communication from Tories for the local elections.
In Hove all I’ve heard from are the two independents and Labour even though one of the current Green councillors is Council Leader. Thank goodness at least the MP is Kyle and not your unfortunate incumbent!
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Nor Tories in Brighton either now, two Parliamentary seats in the city Labour, the other Green
Yes, I'm in Brighton Kemptown, a Tory seat as recently as 2015. The Tories have disappeared completely, even though Lloyd Russell-Moyle is the MP. We've had no communication from Tories for the local elections.
In Hove all I’ve heard from are the two independents and Labour even though one of the current Green councillors is Council Leader. Thank goodness at least the MP is Kyle and not your unfortunate incumbent!
Yes, Hove is even safer Labour than Kemptown now - also a Tory seat not so long ago. Kyle is a good chap. I think the Greens will get a bit of a drubbing next week, and lose lots of seats.
Yes the Coronation will overshadow the results and help the Tories if the results are bad. Yet will they be so bad? Remember the comparison will be with the 28% NEV the Tories got in the May 2019 locals NOT the 43% the Tories got in the December 2019 general election.
Indeed on the latest poll tonight from Deltapoll the Tories are on 30% so actually UP on what they got in the 2019 locals. It is therefore not impossible the Tories under Rishi will actually gain council seats next week from the LDs (who are on just 9% compared to the 19% they got in the May 2019 locals), Independents and Greens, even if they likely lose seats to Labour who are on 43% compared to the 28% NEV they also got in May 2019 https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1651643505087750153?s=20
We shouldn't be comparing opinion polls for intended vote at the next General Election with the expected NEV of the local elections next week. They're measuring very different things - for example, the LDs at the time weren't polling 19% in GE polling but around 11%; not too far from where they are now (about 10%).
Comparing apples with apples to try to get the idea of the broad comparison of an orange with an orange, I've done an approximate comparison of the polling from the start of the year to the week ending the 29th of April (for sampling) in 2019 versus 2023. It's pretty crude, because I haven't done any adjustment for sample size, and it's averaging each out in each given week (and when sampling dates cross between weeks, they're put in the week when most sampling was taken):
Labour well up (about 14 points) Cons slightly up (about 1 point) LDs slightly down (about 1 point)
It should lead to decent improvement in seat numbers for Labour, and the churn between Cons and LDs may be overwhelmed by local strengths and weaknesses and possibly even tactical voting (and local activity and availability of candidates).
unless they let you grab them by the pussy no doubt
The entire text of the amendment that would change the Constitution, passed by Congress in the seventies, final ratification blocked by conservatives ever since.
"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Seems to duplicate the Fourteenth Amendment. Is the objection to section 2?
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
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, my view is that where you were last time is largely irrelevant nowadays. Loyalty to a party is a thing of the past. And also, the landscape has changed. No Corbyn, no Boris. The fact that a given voter preferred Boris to Corbyn last time implies almost nothing for their views on Rish v SKS (though I'd suggest if we know what that voter thought about Cameron v EdM we might get a better idea).
Approx 1 in 3 people who vote in a British general election vote differently to the previous one*. Volatile.
* Source: Read it the other day somewhere.
That feels about right. 25%-30% always vote Tory, 25%-30% always vote Labour, 5%-10% always vote LD/Grn/nationalist.
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.
I wonder how many Singaporeans smoke weed though? How many politicians of the world have at one time or other? This is cannabis ffs, not heroin.
There are historic reasons why East, and South East, Asian countries take a very hard line against drug-trafficking.
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
Indeed, and I am aware of that. As my previous post says, it doesn't stop us questioning the morality of judicial murder, particularly for the crime of smuggling a recreational drug that a huge number of people in the world consider to be largely benign.
The original form of cannabis is fairly benign. The super strength skunk stuff seems to have some serious issues.
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
I have seen too many lives ruined by cannabis to consider it benign. I have become much more harsh on drugs over the years.
I would support decriminalisation of small amounts, with civil fines that are cancelled on attendance for treatment. Our mental health services couldn't cope with the demand though.
Indeed, largely thanks to criminalisation. With the black market as it is now, the THC proportions will only carry on going up.
The man executed in Singapore was convicted in 2017 of “abetting by engaging in a conspiracy to traffic” 1,017.9 grams (35.9 ounces) of cannabis, twice the minimum volume required for a death sentence there. He was “not anywhere near” the drugs at the time of his arrest but Singapore considered his guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt because two mobile phone numbers that belonged to him had been used to coordinate the delivery of the drugs. (In this part of the world you would need to show ID before you can get a phone number).
Personally, I'm unconvinced that there are any Eurodivergences that make sense even on a tactical basis, but that's not the point here.
To pick up on your aside I'm surprised by this view. Putting to one side the entertaining agitprop of the eternal search for the mythical benefits of Brexit, I would think it would be inevitable that there were divergences Britain could now implement to its benefit.
Speaking from a purely theoretical basis, a rather utilitarian view of the EU was that it was a mechanism for settling disputes between independent European nation states. As such it necessarily involves a degree of compromise.
I'd say I was a big fan of compromise roughly half the time, but it does involve doing something you'd rather not do, in exchange for someone else doing the same. So it follows that we're now free not to stick to these compromises (at the cost of others being free of their obligations towards us).
The very worst situation Britain could be in right now would be to see other countries acting with freedom from the obligations they were previously under towards us, while we were unable or unwilling to act in a similar way. We would have paid all of the price for leaving and received none of the benefit for doing so.
It's a fair question, and I'm not sure how certain I am in my answer; but I think there are a few strands that point that way.
For a start, we're nearly seven years after the vote, and I don't think anyone has come up with a Euroreg whose repeal is unambiguously a benefit. There are lots of cases of individuals and businesses wanting X to happen, but X usually turns out to be unpopular, Europe or no Europe.
Then (and for me, this is the key one), you get benefits from doing the same things across a wide market. One production line instead of two, that sort of thing. Divergence would have to be pretty rewarding to overcome that, and I'm not seeing where the big reward divergences are. (That may be due to my being a provincial science master, of course.)
Finally, for all it might not look like it here and now, by instinct I'm conservative. Unless it's necessary to change, it's necessary not to change and all that. Unless they're utter abominations, stick with the existing rules.
And yes, a Brexit where we just tag along behind the EU is pointless and worse than the alternative on offer in 2016. Norway and Switzerland do that in many fields, but they are very clear about what freedoms they have carved out and that they are worth having. The UK hasn't done that, and perhaps is to big and heterogeneous to do that. But what's done is done.
The freedom to diverge is not just in terms of looser regulations (necessitating two production lines) but potentially stricter regulations.
There are also lots of regulations that pertain to things that don't involve manufacturing - procurement rules, say.
Yes the Coronation will overshadow the results and help the Tories if the results are bad. Yet will they be so bad? Remember the comparison will be with the 28% NEV the Tories got in the May 2019 locals NOT the 43% the Tories got in the December 2019 general election.
Indeed on the latest poll tonight from Deltapoll the Tories are on 30% so actually UP on what they got in the 2019 locals. It is therefore not impossible the Tories under Rishi will actually gain council seats next week from the LDs (who are on just 9% compared to the 19% they got in the May 2019 locals), Independents and Greens, even if they likely lose seats to Labour who are on 43% compared to the 28% NEV they also got in May 2019 https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1651643505087750153?s=20
We shouldn't be comparing opinion polls for intended vote at the next General Election with the expected NEV of the local elections next week. They're measuring very different things - for example, the LDs at the time weren't polling 19% in GE polling but around 11%; not too far from where they are now (about 10%).
Comparing apples with apples to try to get the idea of the broad comparison of an orange with an orange, I've done an approximate comparison of the polling from the start of the year to the week ending the 29th of April (for sampling) in 2019 versus 2023. It's pretty crude, because I haven't done any adjustment for sample size, and it's averaging each out in each given week (and when sampling dates cross between weeks, they're put in the week when most sampling was taken):
Labour well up (about 14 points) Cons slightly up (about 1 point) LDs slightly down (about 1 point)
It should lead to decent improvement in seat numbers for Labour, and the churn between Cons and LDs may be overwhelmed by local strengths and weaknesses and possibly even tactical voting (and local activity and availability of candidates).
Brilliant! 🙂
The uptick in LibDems in leading up to the locals is interesting, and partly explains the drop in Labour, because when there was the big Truss Movement, Starmer swallowed Lib Dem’s as well as Tories.
Maybe the lab down Lib Dem up polling changes in last month has been a “limbering up” exercise ahead of massive anti-Tory tactical votes.
Yes the Coronation will overshadow the results and help the Tories if the results are bad. Yet will they be so bad? Remember the comparison will be with the 28% NEV the Tories got in the May 2019 locals NOT the 43% the Tories got in the December 2019 general election.
Indeed on the latest poll tonight from Deltapoll the Tories are on 30% so actually UP on what they got in the 2019 locals. It is therefore not impossible the Tories under Rishi will actually gain council seats next week from the LDs (who are on just 9% compared to the 19% they got in the May 2019 locals), Independents and Greens, even if they likely lose seats to Labour who are on 43% compared to the 28% NEV they also got in May 2019 https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1651643505087750153?s=20
We shouldn't be comparing opinion polls for intended vote at the next General Election with the expected NEV of the local elections next week. They're measuring very different things - for example, the LDs at the time weren't polling 19% in GE polling but around 11%; not too far from where they are now (about 10%).
Comparing apples with apples to try to get the idea of the broad comparison of an orange with an orange, I've done an approximate comparison of the polling from the start of the year to the week ending the 29th of April (for sampling) in 2019 versus 2023. It's pretty crude, because I haven't done any adjustment for sample size, and it's averaging each out in each given week (and when sampling dates cross between weeks, they're put in the week when most sampling was taken):
Labour well up (about 14 points) Cons slightly up (about 1 point) LDs slightly down (about 1 point)
It should lead to decent improvement in seat numbers for Labour, and the churn between Cons and LDs may be overwhelmed by local strengths and weaknesses and possibly even tactical voting (and local activity and availability of candidates).
Slight caveat; the Lab-Con battleground is a relatively small fraction of the seats up for election this time. The seat count is dominated by the all-up elections in rural districts, where there are fewer voters per councillor and Labour often aren't in the running.
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
Yes the Coronation will overshadow the results and help the Tories if the results are bad. Yet will they be so bad? Remember the comparison will be with the 28% NEV the Tories got in the May 2019 locals NOT the 43% the Tories got in the December 2019 general election.
Indeed on the latest poll tonight from Deltapoll the Tories are on 30% so actually UP on what they got in the 2019 locals. It is therefore not impossible the Tories under Rishi will actually gain council seats next week from the LDs (who are on just 9% compared to the 19% they got in the May 2019 locals), Independents and Greens, even if they likely lose seats to Labour who are on 43% compared to the 28% NEV they also got in May 2019 https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1651643505087750153?s=20
We shouldn't be comparing opinion polls for intended vote at the next General Election with the expected NEV of the local elections next week. They're measuring very different things - for example, the LDs at the time weren't polling 19% in GE polling but around 11%; not too far from where they are now (about 10%).
Comparing apples with apples to try to get the idea of the broad comparison of an orange with an orange, I've done an approximate comparison of the polling from the start of the year to the week ending the 29th of April (for sampling) in 2019 versus 2023. It's pretty crude, because I haven't done any adjustment for sample size, and it's averaging each out in each given week (and when sampling dates cross between weeks, they're put in the week when most sampling was taken):
Labour well up (about 14 points) Cons slightly up (about 1 point) LDs slightly down (about 1 point)
It should lead to decent improvement in seat numbers for Labour, and the churn between Cons and LDs may be overwhelmed by local strengths and weaknesses and possibly even tactical voting (and local activity and availability of candidates).
Brilliant! 🙂
The uptick in LibDems in leading up to the locals is interesting, and partly explains the drop in Labour, because when there was the big Truss Movement, Starmer swallowed Lib Dem’s as well as Tories.
Maybe the lab down Lib Dem up polling changes in last month has been a “limbering up” exercise ahead of massive anti-Tory tactical votes.
Bear in mind that towards the end of February, we had the ChangeUK thing burst into existence and then go a bit weird. That caused quite a bit of volatility in the end-Feb/March/early-Apr period until it became clear they weren't going to stand in the local elections.
Yes; Brighton is the city of godless green gays; not much room for Christians there.
Nor Tories in Brighton either now, two Parliamentary seats in the city Labour, the other Green
Yes, I'm in Brighton Kemptown, a Tory seat as recently as 2015. The Tories have disappeared completely, even though Lloyd Russell-Moyle is the MP. We've had no communication from Tories for the local elections.
In Hove all I’ve heard from are the two independents and Labour even though one of the current Green councillors is Council Leader. Thank goodness at least the MP is Kyle and not your unfortunate incumbent!
Yes, Hove is even safer Labour than Kemptown now - also a Tory seat not so long ago. Kyle is a good chap. I think the Greens will get a bit of a drubbing next week, and lose lots of seats.
In contrast, I’m beginning to think the LLG is not so interchangeable now between Green and Labour, I don’t think we can add high polling numbers of Greens onto Labour expecting they vote Labour tactically. BJO isn’t voting Labour, why should we presume pro-trans anti capitalists who were fighting for Corbyn but have now clearly given up the ghost and thrown their hat and soul into Greens, will tactically vote for Labour? The greens will do well at these locals and at next years GE, labour won’t eat their votes tactically as presumed as recently as recent.
Yes the Coronation will overshadow the results and help the Tories if the results are bad. Yet will they be so bad? Remember the comparison will be with the 28% NEV the Tories got in the May 2019 locals NOT the 43% the Tories got in the December 2019 general election.
Indeed on the latest poll tonight from Deltapoll the Tories are on 30% so actually UP on what they got in the 2019 locals. It is therefore not impossible the Tories under Rishi will actually gain council seats next week from the LDs (who are on just 9% compared to the 19% they got in the May 2019 locals), Independents and Greens, even if they likely lose seats to Labour who are on 43% compared to the 28% NEV they also got in May 2019 https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1651643505087750153?s=20
We shouldn't be comparing opinion polls for intended vote at the next General Election with the expected NEV of the local elections next week. They're measuring very different things - for example, the LDs at the time weren't polling 19% in GE polling but around 11%; not too far from where they are now (about 10%).
Comparing apples with apples to try to get the idea of the broad comparison of an orange with an orange, I've done an approximate comparison of the polling from the start of the year to the week ending the 29th of April (for sampling) in 2019 versus 2023. It's pretty crude, because I haven't done any adjustment for sample size, and it's averaging each out in each given week (and when sampling dates cross between weeks, they're put in the week when most sampling was taken):
Labour well up (about 14 points) Cons slightly up (about 1 point) LDs slightly down (about 1 point)
It should lead to decent improvement in seat numbers for Labour, and the churn between Cons and LDs may be overwhelmed by local strengths and weaknesses and possibly even tactical voting (and local activity and availability of candidates).
Brilliant! 🙂
The uptick in LibDems in leading up to the locals is interesting, and partly explains the drop in Labour, because when there was the big Truss Movement, Starmer swallowed Lib Dem’s as well as Tories.
Maybe the lab down Lib Dem up polling changes in last month has been a “limbering up” exercise ahead of massive anti-Tory tactical votes.
Bear in mind that towards the end of February, we had the ChangeUK thing burst into existence and then go a bit weird. That caused quite a bit of volatility in the end-Feb/March/early-Apr period until it became clear they weren't going to stand in the local elections.
Bearing that in mind, that can only be brilliant news for the Tories.
Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said: "On behalf of the BBC Executive, I would like to thank Richard for his service to the BBC and the drive and intellect he brought to his time as chairman.
JBM is that rare thing - a data cruncher in the mainstream media who apparently prefers to get the truth rather than a desired answer and also seems to know what he's doing.
Corrupt BBC Chair resigns whilst claiming he did nothing wrong, classic. Not even an admission that even if it was inadvertent what he did was titanically stupid, since a child understands issues of potential conflict better than he did apparently.
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.
I will not watch 1 second of the parasite crowning.
Comments
"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Makes me think of this song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=civuoU_NE38
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent"
Incumbency only works so far. Especially when the incumbent is a 2019 entry moron. I expect to see an awful lot of ex-MPs after the election.
I suspect he would be pretty happy being a normal dry Thatcherite- cut the deficit then cut taxes through an eternal squeeze on the public sector. Highly Eurosceptic, but very specific, limited and tactical in his divergences. (Personally, I'm unconvinced that there are any Eurodivergences that make sense even on a tactical basis, but that's not the point here.)
Unfortunately, he leads a party that doesn't want those things really. I mean, they want the tax cuts, but not the pain that will accompany them if they happen in a sound money way. And they want Eurodivergence as a matter of principle.
So Sunak has to keep throwing the hungry dog a rubber bone. We saw it with the EU Shredder promise, I suspect we're seeing it with the Tough On Boats policy. We saw it in a slightly different way with the Windsor Agreement.
I'm all for realism over unrealism. And the feebleness of the ERG rebellion over Windsor might show that they are an increasingly toothless old cur. But making dumb promises to appease the dumb and then rowing back on them is unlikely to work well indefinitely.
* Source: Read it the other day somewhere.
The other thing that I think helps is the timing. Saw that the ceremony in the Abbey is due to start ~11am - so the procession there starts earlier. This means the whole thing will be wrapped up in plenty of time for people to get out and about in any good weather later in the day.
https://theconversation.com/how-many-voters-really-switch-parties-in-british-elections-what-the-evidence-tells-us-127690
What I can't quickly find is numbers for those who flip between voting and not voting. (See the Conservatives who didn't go Lib or Lab in 1997, or the Labourites who simply couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn in 2019. It must be buried somewhere in the BES.)
On the other hand long term incumbency is a negative. Complacency and "time for a change".
UNS doesn't account for these effects, nor for tactical voting.
For this reason I think there will be plenty of surprises, both ways, at the next general election.
If anyone intends to watch the coronation on catch up I would be fascinated to hear why.
The original Equal Rights Amendment passed in 1972 with
354 yeas, 24 nays and 51 not voting in the House
and
84 yeas, 8 nays and 7 not voting in the Senate
So the Republicans have gone backwards since the 70s.
Speaking from a purely theoretical basis, a rather utilitarian view of the EU was that it was a mechanism for settling disputes between independent European nation states. As such it necessarily involves a degree of compromise.
I'd say I was a big fan of compromise roughly half the time, but it does involve doing something you'd rather not do, in exchange for someone else doing the same. So it follows that we're now free not to stick to these compromises (at the cost of others being free of their obligations towards us).
The very worst situation Britain could be in right now would be to see other countries acting with freedom from the obligations they were previously under towards us, while we were unable or unwilling to act in a similar way. We would have paid all of the price for leaving and received none of the benefit for doing so.
People like weddings more than other church occasions as there is an optimism and relatability to them. Indeed often weddings and funerals are the only time they go, so I think viewing figures will be lower than William's or Harry's weddings, or the Queen's funeral. Still will be high though.
1. Tories are against the green agenda now that Boris has gone. Too much money to be made opposing wind and solar and polluting our rivers and beaches
2. LibDems will not do a coalition with the Tories again in a hurry, especially not *this* Tory party
Singapore is just about the worst country on earth to try smuggling drugs into.
✝️Christians as a percentage of population in [city] in 2021
Carlisle 53.3%
Doncaster 50.9%
Wrexham 49.5%
Gloucester 47.7%
Peterborough 46.3%
Worcester 48.9%
Stoke 45.8%
Coventry 43.9%
Leeds 42.3%
London 41.7%
Newcastle 41.3%
Swansea 41.3%
Derby 40.2%
Southampton 40.1%
Hull 39.9%
Sheffield 38.5%
Cardiff 38.3%
Oxford 38.1%
Manchester 36.2%
Cambridge 35.2%
Nottingham 34.7%
Birmingham 34.0%
Norwich 33.6%
Bradford 33.4%
Bristol 32.2%
Brighton & Hove 30.9%
Leicester 24.7%
Source: ONS.
https://twitter.com/Rob_Kimbell/status/1651817996870885376?s=20
Am fighting harder this time - as are others locally - only the Lib Dems have put up a full slate of candidates. More leaflets and some actual canvassing. Reaction feels like it was in the 3 parliamentary by-elections that the Lib Dems won. Quite unlike last time -2019 when these seats last fought. (C 52%, Lib Dem (me) 39%, Lab 8%).
Legalisation would allow/help with research into effects, product quality and also remove the push to ever more powerful drugs in smaller volumes.
Moral of the story. That is the last important anything I am ever sending with Royal Mail.
There hasn't been a coronation for seventy years. The oldest surviving member of my family was only seven at the time. I think you'll get a lot of people, including lukewarm republicans, turning on to watch it for the novelty value.
I think it is quite possible to be right of centre and "green", it just has a different emphasis to the lefty agenda where greenery is used as a desperate attempt to wage class war and attack capitalism.
PS. Where did you get the picture of the coolest Bond villain ever you are using as your avatar?
https://www.varbes.com/demographics/norwich-demographics
I would support decriminalisation of small amounts, with civil fines that are cancelled on attendance for treatment. Our mental health services couldn't cope with the demand though.
https://www.ft.com/content/f0fe5dcc-3797-4796-a19e-a2ee6c1b7be9
For a start, we're nearly seven years after the vote, and I don't think anyone has come up with a Euroreg whose repeal is unambiguously a benefit. There are lots of cases of individuals and businesses wanting X to happen, but X usually turns out to be unpopular, Europe or no Europe.
Then (and for me, this is the key one), you get benefits from doing the same things across a wide market. One production line instead of two, that sort of thing. Divergence would have to be pretty rewarding to overcome that, and I'm not seeing where the big reward divergences are. (That may be due to my being a provincial science master, of course.)
Finally, for all it might not look like it here and now, by instinct I'm conservative. Unless it's necessary to change, it's necessary not to change and all that. Unless they're utter abominations, stick with the existing rules.
And yes, a Brexit where we just tag along behind the EU is pointless and worse than the alternative on offer in 2016. Norway and Switzerland do that in many fields, but they are very clear about what freedoms they have carved out and that they are worth having. The UK hasn't done that, and perhaps is to big and heterogeneous to do that. But what's done is done.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/29/uk-census-christians-now-minority-england-wales-first-time/
There’s nothing voters hate more than being taken for fools.
Not quite yet though. As usual in these things, PB is a bit ahead of the game.
Of the Norwich population over the age of 90, girls outnumber boys by 2.4 to 1.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/29/cannabis-industry-next-war-485044
Thinking of myself, in GEs since I turned 18, all in different parliamentary constituencies (I've moved a fair bit)
2001 - Con (Con-Lab fairly marginal)
2005 - LD (LDs took seat from Lab)
2010 - LD (Looked safe Lab, Cons almost took it - I would have voted Lab tactically if I'd expected it to be close)
2015 - Lab (Safe Lab seat)
2019 - Green (Safe Con seat)
So, I - reasonably politically aware - have changed in 3/4 of opportunities to change. I can believe 1/3 overall with less fixed (in the sense of 'we always vote X') politics now
I voted for the party I wanted to win in the first four of those, although I would have voted tactically in 2010 had a believed it was in play. In 2019, in a safe seat, I voted Green to signal support for 'green crap' issues. I'd voted LD if they'd been in with any shout - or probably if they'd had a better leader/campaign and not made the cancel Brexit without a referendum pledge and I'd have rather had a LD than Green government.
There's a chance with boundary changes that my seat at next GE (which otherwise wil be the same as GE2019 seat) might give Lab an outside chance, so I'll probably be looking at a tactical Lab vote. I'd likely be back to LD in a seat where they had a chance.
ETA: Looks like quite the journey from right -> left there! The 2001 me was a different person, influenced still by my parents. I don't think I could have voted Lab in 2019 in an in-play seat with Corbyn in charge and I wouldn't want a (current) Green Party government.
One thing we havn’t touched on much on PB, is how Rishi’s Indian heritage sucks in more Tory voters excited about that, completely changing the dynamic in some places giving Tory’s unexpected wins.
When I say unexpected wins, I guess this is a proper politicalbetting post.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/22/i-cant-even/
I know that most people don't understand politics. But they understand raw sewage. I just don't understand the government on this, both in terms of the policy and the politics.
There is a reason that beer, wine and spirit strengths have ended up where they are, around the world.
To avoid paywall, without 12ft.io or similar, if you click through from Google search on headline, the FT lets you in:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Pay+rises+alone+will+not+stem+the+flow+of+Britain’s+medics
Atheist selective reporting? Or good old-fashioned Southerner anti-Scouse bigotry?
My guess is the latter. Anyone with an ounce of sense will use the day to meet up with their mates and have a laugh.
So, a shift away from dodgy appointments rather than a shift to the left, I think you'll find.
Comparing apples with apples to try to get the idea of the broad comparison of an orange with an orange, I've done an approximate comparison of the polling from the start of the year to the week ending the 29th of April (for sampling) in 2019 versus 2023. It's pretty crude, because I haven't done any adjustment for sample size, and it's averaging each out in each given week (and when sampling dates cross between weeks, they're put in the week when most sampling was taken):
Labour well up (about 14 points)
Cons slightly up (about 1 point)
LDs slightly down (about 1 point)
It should lead to decent improvement in seat numbers for Labour, and the churn between Cons and LDs may be overwhelmed by local strengths and weaknesses and possibly even tactical voting (and local activity and availability of candidates).
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1651878868129644544?s=20
After yesterday evening's cocktail binge, I was happy to wake up with a clear head, ready for the day.
On topic, Tories most seats, Labour form a government, is a definite possibility. If I was going to bet on this market, it would be on the Tories.
There are also lots of regulations that pertain to things that don't involve manufacturing - procurement rules, say.
The uptick in LibDems in leading up to the locals is interesting, and partly explains the drop in Labour, because when there was the big Truss Movement, Starmer swallowed Lib Dem’s as well as Tories.
Maybe the lab down Lib Dem up polling changes in last month has been a “limbering up” exercise ahead of massive anti-Tory tactical votes.
But it was conservative states which either refused or long delayed ratification. Which is why the amendment is where it is.