We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
What a stupid graph. Whether the sea level has been rising or not a 20-yr graph isn't telling us anything.
Govt must be over 50% across unions with the large unison acceptance, close gmb and narrow defeats at RCN and unite. Also midwifery acceptance. I think they've judged this well , deal looks to be ratified shortly
Sky just saying the majority vote of the unions collectively on the pay deal next week will accept the pay deal and seek quick payment
So, after listening to Bari Weiss’ latest podcast, I decided to download a chat gpt ai app and see what all the fuss is about.
Must say, I’m neither impressed, nor scared.
Asking some complicated questions, like “will Kier Starmer win the next election?” resulted in a very anodyne and useless response. A paragraph about how the election result “depends on political strategies” and wotnot.
Fair enough, perhaps. But some reference to current opinion polls might be useful.
“Who is Liz Truss?” elicited the response that she is currently foreign secretary. Something that is objectively untrue. It was no more informative than 6 month old archived copy of Wikipedia.
At least an archived Wikipedia article would make it clear that it is archived.
This chatGPT thingy ain’t gonna replace PB any time soon….
Oh, and the apps are all terrible. Full of ads and sly tricks to force payment.
Anyone know if there is a way to access chatgpt4, for free, in a clean format via a web browser?
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
What a stupid graph. Whether the sea level has been rising or not a 20-yr graph isn't telling us anything.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
What a stupid graph. Whether the sea level has been rising or not a 20-yr graph isn't telling us anything.
Scroll down mate.
Ah thanks yes good point - I hadn't realised that the satellite images go back 100 years. Were the first observations taken by Jules Verne?
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
What a stupid graph. Whether the sea level has been rising or not a 20-yr graph isn't telling us anything.
Incidentally the satellite graph is 30 years not 20, because that's when satellites began measuring the sea surface. Before that it's tidal gauges.
Of course the "sceptics" are quite happy to post 10 year charts showing a global warming hiatus. Remember the one from 2005 to 2014? (which then shot up in 2015)
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
I don't know about that. The young are much more in favour than the old, just as they were in England for Corbyn.
Some of the left has aligned with nationalism and this may be the partial driver of that phenomena. Anecdotally you only need to see the bile from nationalist supporters on here, but additionally my own experience form going there regularly some time ago. And I am half Irish ffs!
Among the passionate campaigners yes. But among the voter base more generally a lot of it I would suggest is a general disgruntlement, being left behind etc.
Govt must be over 50% across unions with the large unison acceptance, close gmb and narrow defeats at RCN and unite. Also midwifery acceptance. I think they've judged this well , deal looks to be ratified shortly
I think this thread demonstrates clearly why the government hasn't judged it well
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
What a stupid graph. Whether the sea level has been rising or not a 20-yr graph isn't telling us anything.
It might not be telling you anything. Silly graph, it should try talking slower and with rp enunciation.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
But what drives unionism though? What's the basis for it. Three hundred or so years of the act of union? What else overrides independence for Scotland (and Wales, if they choose it). Forget the how, if its economically feasible or not. Just focus on why, or why not.
When ever making a decision of great consequence, particularly where there is great division, then the question that needs to be asked is "what is the benefit?" Remember the so-far elusive "benefits of Brexit"?
Scottish nationalism is similar to British nationalism. It assumes an exceptionalism, with many of it's adherents simply driven by an irrational hatred of "the other lot".
Scottish separatism and Brexitism are two cheeks of the same ugly arse. Pointless philosophies that try to excuse the filthy raison d'etre which is hatred of the foreigner. No, no no, say the apologists, like those who wanted to believe that Russian nationalism was benign.
Seeking to establish a nation state is a fundamentally different category of nationalism to one that seeks to romanticize or idolize or expand by force a nation state that already exists. I'm surprised you don't see this distinction.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Global sea levels as measured by satellite have been rising monotonically for decades. It's a much straighter and less wavy trend than the global surface temperature:
but there are of course always sceptical sources that cherrypick flat sea levels from certain regions (often because of isostatic and circulation effects), e.g. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33D789N
What a stupid graph. Whether the sea level has been rising or not a 20-yr graph isn't telling us anything.
It might not be telling you anything. Silly graph, it should try talking slower and with rp enunciation.
I think the early 20th century satellites are the ones that we can trust the most.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
So, after listening to Bari Weiss’ latest podcast, I decided to download a chat gpt ai app and see what all the fuss is about.
Must say, I’m neither impressed, nor scared.
Asking some complicated questions, like “will Kier Starmer win the next election?” resulted in a very anodyne and useless response. A paragraph about how the election result “depends on political strategies” and wotnot.
Fair enough, perhaps. But some reference to current opinion polls might be useful.
“Who is Liz Truss?” elicited the response that she is currently foreign secretary. Something that is objectively untrue. It was no more informative than 6 month old archived copy of Wikipedia.
At least an archived Wikipedia article would make it clear that it is archived.
This chatGPT thingy ain’t gonna replace PB any time soon….
Oh, and the apps are all terrible. Full of ads and sly tricks to force payment.
Anyone know if there is a way to access chatgpt4, for free, in a clean format via a web browser?
The GPT training data stopped at the end of 2021 so it is a bit useless response-wise if you try and ask it for recent news. You might get more helpful responses from Bing's chatbot or googles 'Bard' one if you want up-to-date questions and answers.
I don't think I've seen a free-to-access GPT4. But there are a lot of apps appearing - some of them need a bit of technical skill (and very beefy hardware) to get working though. Might be worth poking about https://huggingface.co/ (though their own new 'hugging chat v0' is a bit poor in my experience).
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
Always jam tomorrow, eh?
It's just physics.
Not yet it's not. "most climatologists reckon" is not yet physics. It might be one day when "most climatologists" say there we told you so. Plus what value in percentage terms of "most" is good enough for you to take it as "physics"?
Noting that the polling gap has tightened, and also noting the thread the other day about coronation timing, I wonder whether the third factor that will shake the narrative of these elections if the timing of declarations? Was it the last lot where it looked OK for Boris late enough on the night to shape the news cycle?
If Rishi is a lucky general, he will get his good results in first, and then it’ll be walk to wall coronation.
So, after listening to Bari Weiss’ latest podcast, I decided to download a chat gpt ai app and see what all the fuss is about.
Must say, I’m neither impressed, nor scared.
Asking some complicated questions, like “will Kier Starmer win the next election?” resulted in a very anodyne and useless response. A paragraph about how the election result “depends on political strategies” and wotnot.
Fair enough, perhaps. But some reference to current opinion polls might be useful.
“Who is Liz Truss?” elicited the response that she is currently foreign secretary. Something that is objectively untrue. It was no more informative than 6 month old archived copy of Wikipedia.
At least an archived Wikipedia article would make it clear that it is archived.
This chatGPT thingy ain’t gonna replace PB any time soon….
Oh, and the apps are all terrible. Full of ads and sly tricks to force payment.
Anyone know if there is a way to access chatgpt4, for free, in a clean format via a web browser?
OK.
ChatGPT's training data comes from September 2021. It knows nothing of the world beyond that point.
There are some things it does very well, such as "write an ode to the virtues of flossing your teeth in the style of Shakespeare". Or, "what is the command on Linux to delete all the files in the current directory that are bigger than 20mb and which do not have the letter 'e' anywhere in the filename or which are are older than nine months". It will do a decent job of explaining the pros and cons of nuclear power.
However, it can be pretty awful at facts and sometimes just outright invents things.
Ahead of next week's LEs, I've brought to date my by election tracker, calculating an average of defended NEV plus swing across the elections
In January, on a small sample, Labour led by 41-21, with a 37-25 result over that last quarter.
Between Feb-Apr, the have been 33 by-elections, including 21 with a substantively equivalent candidate list (West Lancashire is also included as one data point).
The updated implied NEV for the last 3 months of elections is:
LAB 31.5 (33.2 if you only count equivalent elections) CON 29.2 (29.3)
I expect Labour to outperform a 4 point lead in LE2023, but my central expectation is only about a 36 / 29 NEV, and I'd be perfectly pleased with 10 points plus.
In other words and with 2019 as the baseline, and a fairly stable Con/LD battlefield I'm only expecting slight Con losses.
I expect GE markets to shift a little more towards Con accordingly next week, but to me the outlook won't be much changed, as I think this is still a delayed Sunak honeymoon.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
I don't know about that. The young are much more in favour than the old, just as they were in England for Corbyn.
Some of the left has aligned with nationalism and this may be the partial driver of that phenomena. Anecdotally you only need to see the bile from nationalist supporters on here, but additionally my own experience form going there regularly some time ago. And I am half Irish ffs!
Among the passionate campaigners yes. But among the voter base more generally a lot of it I would suggest is a general disgruntlement, being left behind etc.
It is probably not a surprise that I consider Scottish nationalism to be a very sinister con trick on the people of Scotland. I know it is probably an unfashionable view point, but I am very cynical about people who build a case based on false grievance and false history. The world has seen this trick used so many times and it has never turned out well.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
Always jam tomorrow, eh?
It's just physics.
Not yet it's not. "most climatologists reckon" is not yet physics. It might be one day when "most climatologists" say there we told you so. Plus what value in percentage terms of "most" is good enough for you to take it as "physics"?
You don't even have to invoke physics; common sense will do. When the earth warms, the ice melts. Physics is only needed for the details. Currently, melting ice constitutes only around (from memory) 15% of the sea level rise, but this proportion will inevitably rise as melting accelerates with rising temperature. I don't see why that should be at all controversial.
In 2019, actual votes cast had the Conservatives on 31.5%, Labour on 26.5% and the LDs on 16.8%. The Greens polled 9.2% and UKIP 4.5% with 11.5% reserved for Independents, Residents and others.
That explains the Omnisis vote shares and it confirms my view Labour are going to have "a good evening". It's a swing of 7.5% from Conservative to Labour so Councils like Medway could well flip.
A small swing from Conservatives and Independents to LDs and Greens might create a more confused picture in other areas such as the southern districts.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
Always jam tomorrow, eh?
Thermal expansion has been the leading cause of sea level rise (oh by the way, the sea level has been rising. Did we explain that?) because as others say that's simple physics. The oceans can warm a huge amount because they are very deep and have massive thermal capacity, and even tiny fractions of a degree of overall ocean warming mean significant expansion. Glacial melt also has a direct (and increasing) contribution, but it's largely been continental mountain glaciers whose contribution is tiny compared with thermal expansion. The big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are not projected to melt until much later in this century and the next. But they will. Even if we curb emissions now and limit warming to 1.5C - the threshold for ice sheet collapse has already been crossed. That ship has sailed.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
Always jam tomorrow, eh?
It's just physics.
Not yet it's not. "most climatologists reckon" is not yet physics. It might be one day when "most climatologists" say there we told you so. Plus what value in percentage terms of "most" is good enough for you to take it as "physics"?
You don't even have to invoke physics; common sense will do. When the earth warms, the ice melts. Physics is only needed for the details. Currently, melting ice constitutes only around (from memory) 15% of the sea level rise, but this proportion will inevitably rise as melting accelerates with rising temperature. I don't see why that should be at all controversial.
It is important if policy decisions are being made on false assumptions though. I studied this back in the late eighties and it was projected that the eustatic sea level rise would be meters by the year 2000. It didn't happen. I am not a climate change denier; it has almost certainly happened, but the problem is predicting the consequences. Vested interests will always imagine worse case
We must also salute Winchester cathedral, not so much for its beauty (it isn’t especially beautiful), nor even its size (tho it is big), but because it hosts the bones of Anglo Saxon kings like Edward the Elder and Aethweulf, and King Cnut and Harthcnut. It demonstrates the sheer longevity of England
When you see their caskets it is very moving
I felt similar when I saw the tombs of Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Richard the Lionheart at Fontevraud Abbey. Well worth a visit if you haven't been.
i have been! I actually stayed in the Abbey hotel, which is within the precincts of the church - it’s an adapted leprosarium! - meaning you can walk about at will 24/7
Strolling into the actual abbey at 1am - rather drunk, after a Michelin star meal - to see moonlight striking the effigy of Richard the Lionheart is something I will not quickly forget
Have been a few times as was lucky enough to have a mate with a chateau down the road we used to make use of. The day of his wedding we had a lunch for the groom’s party there which ended up being somewhat slowly delivered resulting in a tough debate between finishing the lunch and getting the groom to his wedding. It’s strange finding such an important site of English history in such a small spot of France.
Re Winchester Cathedral it’s definitely not the most beautiful but there is something imposing about it - almost like a brutalist vision of gothic architecture. The boxes of bones are all a bit mixed up as the Parliamentarian army used the cathedral as stables when they arrived in Winchester and decided to defile the cathedral.
They went to try and do the same to Winchester College until General Nathaniel Fiennes, an old boy and founder’s kin, stepped in just as they were about to pull down the gate statue of Mary that was from the foundation and is still there today thanks to his influence.
Winchester is a brilliant little city. I know it very well (my sister used to Iive there)
I used to tup my girlfriend (my sister’s au pair) on the famous walk to St Cross, where Keats was inspired to write his Ode to Autumn,. I was inspired to bend her over a stile. A few times. Sorry. It’s past the lagershed here
As for Fontevraud, it is sobering to realise it was also a Nazi prison, where they shot lots of Resistance fighters. Almost too much history
Has anyone mentioned Ely? As you drive toward Ely and see it's majesty you can't help wondering that if we are still impressed today, what must they have thought in the middle ages?
Back then, before the fens were drained, Ely was actually an island, so it would have looked majestic.
East Anglia was considerably smaller then, than it is now, thanks to land reclamation. Really high North sea tides would reach almost as far as Cambridge.
I've long suspected that Oxford types have a possible submergence of Cambridge as their plan B.
Cambridge likely will be submerged in a few centuries anyway unless we manage to either suck the excess CO2 out of the air again or engage in some major civil engineering projects.
It might be described as an inconvenient truth, but there is (oddly) no discernible evidence of eustatic (world wide)sea level rise. It is possible it could suddenly and catastrophically start, but most sea level change is actually isostatic which is due to the south UK rising and the north gradually dipping. The South of England will thereffore be significantly higher in centuries to come. How this will affect Cambridge I am not sure
Not much movement on the Techne and Omnisis this week - Labour in the low to mid 40s, Conservatives at or just below 30%, LDs just sneaking into double figures so a Labour lead from 12-15 points.
YouGov has an England split of Labour 42%, Conservative 29% and LD 12% so it's a 13% swing from Conservative to Labour compared to 14% with Redfield & Wilton and a 9% Conservative to LD swing.
Ahead of next week's LEs, I've brought to date my by election tracker, calculating an average of defended NEV plus swing across the elections
In January, on a small sample, Labour led by 41-21, with a 37-25 result over that last quarter.
Between Feb-Apr, the have been 33 by-elections, including 21 with a substantively equivalent candidate list (West Lancashire is also included as one data point).
The updated implied NEV for the last 3 months of elections is:
LAB 31.5 (33.2 if you only count equivalent elections) CON 29.2 (29.3)
I expect Labour to outperform a 4 point lead in LE2023, but my central expectation is only about a 36 / 29 NEV, and I'd be perfectly pleased with 10 points plus.
In other words and with 2019 as the baseline, and a fairly stable Con/LD battlefield I'm only expecting slight Con losses.
I expect GE markets to shift a little more towards Con accordingly next week, but to me the outlook won't be much changed, as I think this is still a delayed Sunak honeymoon.
Omnisis has a swing of 7.5% from Conservative to Labour among LE voters which suggests more than "slight" Conservative losses - I don't know what you mean by "slight" greater or less than 250 seats ?
I expect LDs to be fairly unchanged with losses to Labour offset by gains from Conservatives and Independents.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
But what drives unionism though? What's the basis for it. Three hundred or so years of the act of union? What else overrides independence for Scotland (and Wales, if they choose it). Forget the how, if its economically feasible or not. Just focus on why, or why not.
Simply being pro-UK with a sense that the breaking up of Britain is not a terribly positive thing.
Ahead of next week's LEs, I've brought to date my by election tracker, calculating an average of defended NEV plus swing across the elections
In January, on a small sample, Labour led by 41-21, with a 37-25 result over that last quarter.
Between Feb-Apr, the have been 33 by-elections, including 21 with a substantively equivalent candidate list (West Lancashire is also included as one data point).
The updated implied NEV for the last 3 months of elections is:
LAB 31.5 (33.2 if you only count equivalent elections) CON 29.2 (29.3)
I expect Labour to outperform a 4 point lead in LE2023, but my central expectation is only about a 36 / 29 NEV, and I'd be perfectly pleased with 10 points plus.
In other words and with 2019 as the baseline, and a fairly stable Con/LD battlefield I'm only expecting slight Con losses.
I expect GE markets to shift a little more towards Con accordingly next week, but to me the outlook won't be much changed, as I think this is still a delayed Sunak honeymoon.
Omnisis has a swing of 7.5% from Conservative to Labour among LE voters which suggests more than "slight" Conservative losses - I don't know what you mean by "slight" greater or less than 250 seats ?
I expect LDs to be fairly unchanged with losses to Labour offset by gains from Conservatives and Independents.
Two unknowns:
1 How will Conservative losses in (mostly larger wards) Con/Lab battlegrounds be balanced by possible Conservative gains in (mostly smaller wards) rural districts? The national seat counts might give the Conservatives a phoney security blanket to clutch.
2 How efficient is the Anyone But Conservative vote? The national total tells us little about this. If the LD and Indy vote is down where Labour have a chance and up elsewhere then the Conservatives are in much the same situation as that seagull we heard about yesterday.
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
But what drives unionism though? What's the basis for it. Three hundred or so years of the act of union? What else overrides independence for Scotland (and Wales, if they choose it). Forget the how, if its economically feasible or not. Just focus on why, or why not.
Simply being pro-UK with a sense that the breaking up of Britain is not a terribly positive thing.
What drives Unionism? For belief that E,W and S should be one country (British Unionism) and that RoI and NI should be one country (Irish Unionism) all you have to do is look at a map and believe in common sense.
For British and Irish Isles Unionism (we'll get there some century or other) you look at two maps, The British Isles and New Zealand, and keep believing in common sense.
Indeed most of the warming the earth has absorbed in the last century has been in ocean heat content, which remains a large driver of sea level rise through thermal expansion, alongside glacial melting and groundwater extraction.
The rise in global ocean heat content is another very linear trend with less volatility (due to its greater thermal mass) than the lower atmosphere.
Yes, up until now most of the observed rise in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the warming oceans, but most climatologists reckon that melting ice will play an increasingly important role as time goes on and that this will increase the rate of sea level rise.
Always jam tomorrow, eh?
It's just physics.
Not yet it's not. "most climatologists reckon" is not yet physics. It might be one day when "most climatologists" say there we told you so. Plus what value in percentage terms of "most" is good enough for you to take it as "physics"?
You don't even have to invoke physics; common sense will do. When the earth warms, the ice melts. Physics is only needed for the details. Currently, melting ice constitutes only around (from memory) 15% of the sea level rise, but this proportion will inevitably rise as melting accelerates with rising temperature. I don't see why that should be at all controversial.
It is important if policy decisions are being made on false assumptions though. I studied this back in the late eighties and it was projected that the eustatic sea level rise would be meters by the year 2000. It didn't happen. I am not a climate change denier; it has almost certainly happened, but the problem is predicting the consequences. Vested interests will always imagine worse case
By whom? Given that so far in this discussion you have incorrectly stated that there is no discernible evidence of eustatic sea level rise and have got the direction of isostatic sea level change wrong, I think a citation is required.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
Well, you previously suggested they also had to attend church, and it's quite hard to judge whether someone believes in God, except by, well, asking them, and having them answer that they're Christian...
I didn't, I simply said that a nontrivial number of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. Famously, people used to (and still many do) put CoE as their religion if they were nonreligious.
The determinant should surely be whether they believe in the Christian God and Christian scripture. It really is as simple as that – only PB could complicate it further.
Of course it's not "as simple as that". As you obviously don't know anything about this nor care, why bother commenting?
Er, it is.
If someone doesn't believe in God, they are not a Christian, whether they call themselves a Christian or otherwise.
It is infinitely more subtle than that. But you’re an avowed atheist, right? So you wouldn’t begin to understand
In what way is it 'infinitely more subtle'? We are all ears...
I am spiritual. I believe the universe has a narrative and a purpose, and consciousness is the “sacred” element that weaves it altogether. On a sunny day I am happy to go so far as to say I believe in God
Put me in King’s College Chapel on a misty November evening for an exquisite evensong and I will happily agree that Christianity is a very fine way of expressing my beliefs, and the need for us to love each other, as is taught in the New Testament
At that moment, I am definitely a Christian
Yet I have had spiritual moments in ancient mosques, and Japanese Zen temples, and simply standing by the sea…. And at those points I do not reference Christianity
Before I go, though, this, exactly.
I find it truly bizarre that humans think that they can know anything about a god, and strongly suspect that the details of any religion are people’s imperfect attempts to make sense of that which is utterly beyond our understanding.
Consciousness=god and there’s a little bit in everything (cf Nagel and others) seems a fair stab in the dark, though, not least because we can’t explain either consciousness or god despite thousands of years trying.
I mean they say you can't listen to JS Bach and not believe in god.
For me I think it is chicken and egg. Fantastic "spiritual" evocation has a nomination of god as shorthand for such a feeling; or god lends himself (herself, etc) to that spiritual evocation.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
I'd say it's the same for any religion. Either you believe in your preferred deity or you don't. I dunno why they have to make it so complicated!
Because Henry VIII created the CofE (by accident, according to the detailed history) for people who don’t really believe all that ancient nonsense but still want to pretend?
On the subject of favourite cathedrals, mine is Ripon.
It's a beautiful building without the grandeur of nearby York (or the tourists) as well as a racecourse where I've won money in the past and within reach of two of my other favourite Yorkshire venues, Harrogate and Knaresborough.
Musing on the Coronation, I get the pomp and pageantry and will enjoy the Bank Holiday but I'm a little "what's the point?" about it. Charles III became King the instant his mother died - this isn't like olden times when you had competing successors and the Coronation was a statement of victory or primacy.
Nonetheless, it is an affirmation or a dedication by the King of his obligations to us, his subjects and as Head of State. I'm pro-Monarchy not because I particularly love the Monarchy but because the alternatives wouldn't work - a former political President or an elected figurehead who would become political.
As long as there is accountability particularly where the Crown has a financial relationship with Parliament, I see few issues. We now have a series of older men as King awaiting - assuming Charles has 20 years, William will become King when he gets his Oyster 60+ card and if he reigns for 30 years, it'll be nearly time for George to receive his.
Fortunately, the rules have changed and I assume if George's oldest child is female, she will succeed as Queen about 90 years from now (and I won't be around for that).
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
I think this isn't the first time you've said this. Why do you say it?
I know tactical voting is a thing, but this isn't true. In a Lab/Con marginal, a vote for Labour would add one to Labour. A vote for Con would add one to Con. A vote for someone else DOESN'T do either, but it doesn't support either side either. It's a wasted vote (but then again, a lot of votes are wasted aren't they?).
It really depends on the day on what is the most important issue for you, and what the state of your seat is.
For me, the most important issue is likely to be the introduction of Proportional Representation (as it has been for most of my GE voting intentions). I would therefore vote Liberal Democrat. I do not think it will help, or hinder, in my constituency, because Labour will get 20billion votes, and the others will get 1 vote each (the candidate) and the Lib Dems will get 2 (the candidate plus my vote).
If the most important issue is 'get Party X out' then voting tactically MAY be useful.
But again, its a simple failure of the Labour Party to look past tribalism. The Liberal Democrats (and the Greens) are not traitors because their votes stop Labour winning. They support different policies to Labour, and are not the Labour party.
If Labour wants to win, it needs to put forward a better case than 'Vote for us, else the baby eating evil Tories will win and eat your babies'.
If they want to attract LD voters, try considering PR. It really would help.
+1
Every GE vote I have casted in my lifetime has counted for nothing. British so-called democracy is nothing to write home about, if you don’t support one or other of the parties that have the system nicely sewn up in their favour.
A nontrivial proportion of self-declared Christians neither attend church nor believe in God. So the actual Christian populations of the cities listed above will be rather lower.
I think it's quite hard to come up with a watertight definition of an, "actual Christian".
My mother-in-law used to attend church every Sunday, though the trick was to arrive just late enough that you had to wait in the foyer for the first bit of the service and have the opportunity to catch-up on the gossip. Was she an "actual Christian" at the time?
Her first three grandchildren have all been baptised, with godparents appointed to keep the devil and his works at bay. The Catholic Church would certainly claim those children as their own, and I'd expect them all to go through first communion and confirmation, etc, when the time comes - is that enough to make them "actual Christians" or are they simply going through the motions of the traditional cultural practices that exist in society?
It's really hard to say without having a window into their souls. Self-reporting might be as good as you are going to get. Saying that you are a Christian must mean something to the people who answer in that way, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it would have done in the 19th, 17th or 12th centuries.
I'd define an actual Christian quite simply – someone who believes in the Christian God. Is there much more to it?
There is a slightly tricky aspect to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. It is conventional not to do it.
But the much more interesting question for all groups, Christian, No religion, Islam, everyone else, is "What do you actually think which results in your self identification". On this we have rather a lot of silence.
A recent big book on Humanism (Sarah Bakewell) includes all manner of believers in God in their ranks, including the great Erasmus, a giant of Christian history. Whereas to most people Humanists are people like Dawkins who are specifically atheist or agnostic. These issues are hard.
You are making them needlessly difficult.
See simple flowchart below.
Do you believe in the Christian God?
1) Yes 2) No
If 1 go to A.
If 2 go to B.
A.) You are a Christian B.) You are not a Christian
The Christian God is the same God of Abraham as the Muslim and Jewish God.
Only belief in the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit makes you a Christian
Where do Unitarians fit in to that?
Not really Christian as they don't believe in the Trinity
I think the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy applies.
It would be interesting to know whether HYUFD thinks there were any Christians before the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the late second century!
Maybe the idea is that Jesus was just too modest to mention it.
Well as Jesus is and was God by definition if you followed him you were a Christian.
Do you ever think before you write?
Do you remember saying a short time ago that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity isn't "really" a Christian?
Yes and no early Christians rejected the fact Jesus was God
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
But what drives unionism though? What's the basis for it. Three hundred or so years of the act of union? What else overrides independence for Scotland (and Wales, if they choose it). Forget the how, if its economically feasible or not. Just focus on why, or why not.
Simply being pro-UK with a sense that the breaking up of Britain is not a terribly positive thing.
What drives Unionism? For belief that E,W and S should be one country (British Unionism) and that RoI and NI should be one country (Irish Unionism) all you have to do is look at a map and believe in common sense.
For British and Irish Isles Unionism (we'll get there some century or other) you look at two maps, The British Isles and New Zealand, and keep believing in common sense.
If we're going super long term I'd say common sense steers to no nation states.
Ahead of next week's LEs, I've brought to date my by election tracker, calculating an average of defended NEV plus swing across the elections
In January, on a small sample, Labour led by 41-21, with a 37-25 result over that last quarter.
Between Feb-Apr, the have been 33 by-elections, including 21 with a substantively equivalent candidate list (West Lancashire is also included as one data point).
The updated implied NEV for the last 3 months of elections is:
LAB 31.5 (33.2 if you only count equivalent elections) CON 29.2 (29.3)
I expect Labour to outperform a 4 point lead in LE2023, but my central expectation is only about a 36 / 29 NEV, and I'd be perfectly pleased with 10 points plus.
In other words and with 2019 as the baseline, and a fairly stable Con/LD battlefield I'm only expecting slight Con losses.
I expect GE markets to shift a little more towards Con accordingly next week, but to me the outlook won't be much changed, as I think this is still a delayed Sunak honeymoon.
Omnisis has a swing of 7.5% from Conservative to Labour among LE voters which suggests more than "slight" Conservative losses - I don't know what you mean by "slight" greater or less than 250 seats ?
I expect LDs to be fairly unchanged with losses to Labour offset by gains from Conservatives and Independents.
Interesting, because although I’m no longer a LibDem member, I’m still tapped into a lot of personal and online communications, and they seem remarkably positive and optimistic. Either they’re going to be disappointed or the received wisdom is wrong…?
Ahead of next week's LEs, I've brought to date my by election tracker, calculating an average of defended NEV plus swing across the elections
In January, on a small sample, Labour led by 41-21, with a 37-25 result over that last quarter.
Between Feb-Apr, the have been 33 by-elections, including 21 with a substantively equivalent candidate list (West Lancashire is also included as one data point).
The updated implied NEV for the last 3 months of elections is:
LAB 31.5 (33.2 if you only count equivalent elections) CON 29.2 (29.3)
I expect Labour to outperform a 4 point lead in LE2023, but my central expectation is only about a 36 / 29 NEV, and I'd be perfectly pleased with 10 points plus.
In other words and with 2019 as the baseline, and a fairly stable Con/LD battlefield I'm only expecting slight Con losses.
I expect GE markets to shift a little more towards Con accordingly next week, but to me the outlook won't be much changed, as I think this is still a delayed Sunak honeymoon.
Omnisis has a swing of 7.5% from Conservative to Labour among LE voters which suggests more than "slight" Conservative losses - I don't know what you mean by "slight" greater or less than 250 seats ?
I expect LDs to be fairly unchanged with losses to Labour offset by gains from Conservatives and Independents.
Having given an NEV prediction, I wasn't going to quantify the seat losses, but <10% net of defences (up to 300) seems a reasonable finger in the air definition of slight.
Out of interest on the Omnisis local polling, what is the start point for the 7.5% swing, LE19 or the GE?
People are forgetting just how far behind Labour starts from.
I couldn't agree more.
I know things aren't equal and all the rest of it, but if Labour took 80 seats (80!) from the Conservatives, then assuming no other changes, Labour would still be second in term of seats (282 v 285).
Tribalism, Swingback, Natural Party of Government, Incumbancy Bias, Better the Devil you know.... Call it what you want.
Labour have a moutain to climb to get a majority. Only Blair has won that many seats from the last GE. To even be the largest party they need 82 gains (and 82 losses to the Conservatives). That's a big ask. It's been done, and its certainly a more realistic target but its still a big ask.
I have been saying this for ages, Starmer has a mountain to climb, clawing some seats back in Scotland could be crucial, even then I wouldn't be backing a Labour overall majority
I'm genuinely puzzled why Starmer seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressives (for want of a better word) who could make the difference in so many marginals.
The kerfuffle about PR this week was one example. Starmer's spokesman didn't need to say he has "a long-standing view against proportional representation" - literally no one is going to switch their vote from Con to Lab because Starmer is strongly against PR. Just a non-commital "we have a lot of work to do recovering from 15 years of Tory rule and the voting system isn't an immediate priority" would have been fine. But no, he has to take the small-C conservative line. It happens every time.
As it stands I'm going to be in a Lab/Con stretch marginal after the boundary changes. As such, I should be a target voter for Labour. Right now I'm planning to waste my vote on the LibDems.
Effectively a vote for the Tories. Bravo.
Yes. Exactly that. Because my interests are better served by a Lab+LibDem coalition than a Lab majority.
If Starmer doesn't like that sort of tactical voting, he could, I dunno... endorse PR?
But in your seat it's a straight Lab-Tory fight, so actually you are enhancing your chances of getting a Tory MP – hardly a 'tactical' vote, rather the opposite in fact. Duh!
Let me try and explain it in words of no more than three syllables.
I'm concerned with who forms the government, not who my MP is.
Right now it looks like there are two plausible outcomes: a Lab majority, or a Lab+others coalition.
A Lab majority, according to Starmer, means continued hard Brexit, no chance of PR, and so on.
Therefore I will be casting my vote (a) to maximise the chance of a coalition (shit, four syllables, sorry) and (b) so that I don't feel dirty after putting my cross in the box.
You are casting your vote to increase Tory representation in the House of Commons, and thus increase their chances of retaining power.
Yes, I get it. I understand how FPP works.
Labour: "If you don't vote for us, you're a Tory."
Right, ok, that's a sucky system. We should change it.
Labour: "We will not countenance changing the system."
Sigh.
Where is the demand to change the electoral system coming from ?
Vocal twitter accounts and so-called progressive alliance fanatics don't really make a mass movement or overwhelming demand.
Biggest supporters of PR in order:
1 Liberal Democrats 2 Nigel Farage and RefUK 3 Caroline Lucas and the Green Party.
That does not a majority make
Parties supporting PR: All parties who would see their representation go up with PR.
Parties opposing PR: All parties who would see the representation go down with PR.
To be fair to the SNP, the SNP support PR at Westminster, even though they would see their representation plummet as a result.
If the SNP were true to the cause of independence they would not care about how Westminster elected it’s members and follow an abstentionist path like SF.
It's the difference between considering yourself as illegitimately occupied vs in a union you wish to leave. They are both valid drivers of independence sentiment. The first is a bit of a harder feeling and is more likely to embrace violence. The SNP are in the second softer camp. Which is preferable imo.
Yes but the disingenuous (and historically inaccurate) claim by many of them (particularly the less educated more stupid ones)that they are a "colony" erodes their credibility. Assuming they ever had any. Ireland and the Irish people had a genuine grievance, rather than the fake manufactured ones of weirdo Scottish nationalists
Well I don't share your visceral opposition to Sindy, you know that. Perfectly respectable cause imo.
A perfectly acceptable cause were it not for the fact that rather than being driven by a genuine sense of historical grievance like Ireland, it is driven by a racist hatred of "The English". And little more than that.
But what drives unionism though? What's the basis for it. Three hundred or so years of the act of union? What else overrides independence for Scotland (and Wales, if they choose it). Forget the how, if its economically feasible or not. Just focus on why, or why not.
Simply being pro-UK with a sense that the breaking up of Britain is not a terribly positive thing.
What drives Unionism? For belief that E,W and S should be one country (British Unionism) and that RoI and NI should be one country (Irish Unionism) all you have to do is look at a map and believe in common sense.
For British and Irish Isles Unionism (we'll get there some century or other) you look at two maps, The British Isles and New Zealand, and keep believing in common sense.
If we're going super long term I'd say common sense steers to no nation states.
Steady on. One step at a time. United British and Irish Isles by 2200; liberal democratic governments worldwide by 2300; No nation states 2400.
Why does he need a 'defence'? Why is an all-out briefing attack on Ministers from Civil Servants somehow OK, though they freely admit he hasn't actually done anything wrong? And from the Civil Servants tasked with running the NHS? They're accusing someone else of being an incompetent micromanager?
Ahead of next week's LEs, I've brought to date my by election tracker, calculating an average of defended NEV plus swing across the elections
In January, on a small sample, Labour led by 41-21, with a 37-25 result over that last quarter.
Between Feb-Apr, the have been 33 by-elections, including 21 with a substantively equivalent candidate list (West Lancashire is also included as one data point).
The updated implied NEV for the last 3 months of elections is:
LAB 31.5 (33.2 if you only count equivalent elections) CON 29.2 (29.3)
I expect Labour to outperform a 4 point lead in LE2023, but my central expectation is only about a 36 / 29 NEV, and I'd be perfectly pleased with 10 points plus.
In other words and with 2019 as the baseline, and a fairly stable Con/LD battlefield I'm only expecting slight Con losses.
I expect GE markets to shift a little more towards Con accordingly next week, but to me the outlook won't be much changed, as I think this is still a delayed Sunak honeymoon.
Omnisis has a swing of 7.5% from Conservative to Labour among LE voters which suggests more than "slight" Conservative losses - I don't know what you mean by "slight" greater or less than 250 seats ?
I expect LDs to be fairly unchanged with losses to Labour offset by gains from Conservatives and Independents.
Interesting, because although I’m no longer a LibDem member, I’m still tapped into a lot of personal and online communications, and they seem remarkably positive and optimistic. Either they’re going to be disappointed or the received wisdom is wrong…?
When and why did you give up? Had the impression you were an activist
Comments
Must say, I’m neither impressed, nor scared.
Asking some complicated questions, like “will Kier Starmer win the next election?” resulted in a very anodyne and useless response. A paragraph about how the election result “depends on political strategies” and wotnot.
Fair enough, perhaps. But some reference to current opinion polls might be useful.
“Who is Liz Truss?” elicited the response that she is currently foreign secretary. Something that is objectively untrue. It was no more informative than 6 month old archived copy of Wikipedia.
At least an archived Wikipedia article would make it clear that it is archived.
This chatGPT thingy ain’t gonna replace PB any time soon….
Oh, and the apps are all terrible. Full of ads and sly tricks to force payment.
Anyone know if there is a way to access chatgpt4, for free, in a clean format via a web browser?
Of course the "sceptics" are quite happy to post 10 year charts showing a global warming hiatus. Remember the one from 2005 to 2014? (which then shot up in 2015)
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1651901173216038913
I don't think I've seen a free-to-access GPT4. But there are a lot of apps appearing - some of them need a bit of technical skill (and very beefy hardware) to get working though. Might be worth poking about https://huggingface.co/ (though their own new 'hugging chat v0' is a bit poor in my experience).
five to fivenear enough to six o'clock and the weekend has begun.Ciao.
Breaking Cadwalladr loses pays damages to Banks, more to follow...
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1651986718378151941?s=20
Looking forward to it being presented as a triumph for Cadwalladr.....
If Rishi is a lucky general, he will get his good results in first, and then it’ll be walk to wall coronation.
ChatGPT's training data comes from September 2021. It knows nothing of the world beyond that point.
There are some things it does very well, such as "write an ode to the virtues of flossing your teeth in the style of Shakespeare". Or, "what is the command on Linux to delete all the files in the current directory that are bigger than 20mb and which do not have the letter 'e' anywhere in the filename or which are are older than nine months". It will do a decent job of explaining the pros and cons of nuclear power.
However, it can be pretty awful at facts and sometimes just outright invents things.
Ahead of next week's LEs, I've brought to date my by election tracker, calculating an average of defended NEV plus swing across the elections
In January, on a small sample, Labour led by 41-21, with a 37-25 result over that last quarter.
Between Feb-Apr, the have been 33 by-elections, including 21 with a substantively
equivalent candidate list (West Lancashire is also included as one data point).
The updated implied NEV for the last 3 months of elections is:
LAB 31.5 (33.2 if you only count equivalent elections)
CON 29.2 (29.3)
I expect Labour to outperform a 4 point lead in LE2023, but my central expectation is only about a 36 / 29 NEV, and I'd be perfectly pleased with 10 points plus.
In other words and with 2019 as the baseline, and a fairly stable Con/LD battlefield I'm only expecting slight Con losses.
I expect GE markets to shift a little more towards Con accordingly next week, but to me the outlook won't be much changed, as I think this is still a delayed Sunak honeymoon.
That explains the Omnisis vote shares and it confirms my view Labour are going to have "a good evening". It's a swing of 7.5% from Conservative to Labour so Councils like Medway could well flip.
A small swing from Conservatives and Independents to LDs and Greens might create a more confused picture in other areas such as the southern districts.
Not much movement on the Techne and Omnisis this week - Labour in the low to mid 40s, Conservatives at or just below 30%, LDs just sneaking into double figures so a Labour lead from 12-15 points.
YouGov has an England split of Labour 42%, Conservative 29% and LD 12% so it's a 13% swing from Conservative to Labour compared to 14% with Redfield & Wilton and a 9% Conservative to LD swing.
I expect LDs to be fairly unchanged with losses to Labour offset by gains from Conservatives and Independents.
1 How will Conservative losses in (mostly larger wards) Con/Lab battlegrounds be balanced by possible Conservative gains in (mostly smaller wards) rural districts? The national seat counts might give the Conservatives a phoney security blanket to clutch.
2 How efficient is the Anyone But Conservative vote? The national total tells us little about this. If the LD and Indy vote is down where Labour have a chance and up elsewhere then the Conservatives are in much the same situation as that seagull we heard about yesterday.
For British and Irish Isles Unionism (we'll get there some century or other) you look at two maps, The British Isles and New Zealand, and keep believing in common sense.
For a modern equivalent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqKKaadbJl4&t=851s
It's a beautiful building without the grandeur of nearby York (or the tourists) as well as a racecourse where I've won money in the past and within reach of two of my other favourite Yorkshire venues, Harrogate and Knaresborough.
Musing on the Coronation, I get the pomp and pageantry and will enjoy the Bank Holiday but I'm a little "what's the point?" about it. Charles III became King the instant his mother died - this isn't like olden times when you had competing successors and the Coronation was a statement of victory or primacy.
Nonetheless, it is an affirmation or a dedication by the King of his obligations to us, his subjects and as Head of State. I'm pro-Monarchy not because I particularly love the Monarchy but because the alternatives wouldn't work - a former political President or an elected figurehead who would become political.
As long as there is accountability particularly where the Crown has a financial relationship with Parliament, I see few issues. We now have a series of older men as King awaiting - assuming Charles has 20 years, William will become King when he gets his Oyster 60+ card and if he reigns for 30 years, it'll be nearly time for George to receive his.
Fortunately, the rules have changed and I assume if George's oldest child is female, she will succeed as Queen about 90 years from now (and I won't be around for that).
Every GE vote I have casted in my lifetime has counted for nothing. British so-called democracy is nothing to write home about, if you don’t support one or other of the parties that have the system nicely sewn up in their favour.
Out of interest on the Omnisis local polling, what is the start point for the 7.5% swing, LE19 or the GE?
Sunak needs to get a fucking grip of this.
Oops, I forgot this is Sunak we're talking about.
NEW THREAD