Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Even Tory LEAVE voters don’t want Johnson back – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited July 2023 in General
imageEven Tory LEAVE voters don’t want Johnson back – politicalbetting.com

Thanks to TSE for spotting this one – the past vote split on whether Johnson should try to return as an MP. For as can be seen 47% of GE2019 Tory voters who backed Leave say he shouldn’t with 43% saying he should. So a clear majority of those who had a view don’t want him back.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)
  • mickydroymickydroy Posts: 316
    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    There are always outliers to the trend. I know Dinnington but don't know the issues. The swing from Indy to Con and Green to Lab are interesting.

    If Labour / LD / Green argue over who is in the driving seat to pick up some seats, the Tory will cling on.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Boris Johnson has wrecked his own brand and destroyed himself?

    Oh dear, how sad.

    Never mind.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    Yep - suggests a degree of Con stickiness that bucks the polling trend.

    Low turnout though, and like a lot of S Yorks seats Dinnington is an odd mix of a rough(ish, these days) ex pit village and a lot of quite posh hinterland. Recall too that this is Rotherham council - textbook example of a Labour fiefdom that was taken for granted, and then of course the shameful grooming scandal.

    Another outtake is how Reform have basically no cut-through here in what has been a quite Ukippy area.

    But certainly quite a cheering result for the Tories, whose lurch to statist nationalism probably goes down OK here.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    There are always outliers to the trend. I know Dinnington but don't know the issues. The swing from Indy to Con and Green to Lab are interesting.

    If Labour / LD / Green argue over who is in the driving seat to pick up some seats, the Tory will cling on.
    The right wing vote has tended to be strong in this constituency (Rother Valley). UKIP came second here not long back, and the BNP regularly drew four-figure numbers; as with a lot of supposed ‘red wall’ (a useless expression which covers a very diverse range of seats) there was enough of a Tory rump vote too from the posh rural bits.

    While breezy Cameroonian liberalism isn’t really going to chime here, populist Johnsonism does.

    All that being said, it’s still needs to be a Labour target. They still have a strong vote here.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    Ghedebrav said:

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    There are always outliers to the trend. I know Dinnington but don't know the issues. The swing from Indy to Con and Green to Lab are interesting.

    If Labour / LD / Green argue over who is in the driving seat to pick up some seats, the Tory will cling on.
    The right wing vote has tended to be strong in this constituency (Rother Valley). UKIP came second here not long back, and the BNP regularly drew four-figure numbers; as with a lot of supposed ‘red wall’ (a useless expression which covers a very diverse range of seats) there was enough of a Tory rump vote too from the posh rural bits.

    While breezy Cameroonian liberalism isn’t really going to chime here, populist Johnsonism does.

    All that being said, it’s still needs to be a Labour target. They still have a strong vote here.
    The question at the GE will be whether memories of populist Johnsonism defeats the disappointment in both the current government and the lack of delivery of all the things populist Johnsonism promised...
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Well, let's see in a weeks time.

    I recall the Tories didn't do very well in the May real votes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,498

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    *If* metallic hydrogen is metastable for long periods, that could be a game-changer.

    (Metallic hydrogen is a form of compressed hydrogen that exhibits metallic properties. If it has been created, it has only been created in tiny portions. Metastable means it won't immediately change when pressure is released, and remains metallic for an unknown period. But the energy cost of creating the metallic hydrogen might be more than the metallic hydrogen can store. IANAE, AIUI etc.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    The media adores talking about the media and voicing how incredibly significant they are and why this actually matters.

    Its a little tedious after the first fortnight.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,557

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Has anyone said they shouldn’t? Happily the email is being investigated, by the police, and the new chap I would hope/imagine is being investigated by his employers and they will receive any relevant information from people who might have been too scared to come forward until now.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    Because it isn't happening and won't happen?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    *If* metallic hydrogen is metastable for long periods, that could be a game-changer.

    (Metallic hydrogen is a form of compressed hydrogen that exhibits metallic properties. If it has been created, it has only been created in tiny portions. Metastable means it won't immediately change when pressure is released, and remains metallic for an unknown period. But the energy cost of creating the metallic hydrogen might be more than the metallic hydrogen can store. IANAE, AIUI etc.)
    No one has presented any convincing reason why metallic hydrogen should be even vaguely stable at STP. It would be cool and everything but I think it pretty unlikely.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148
    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    The media adores talking about the media and voicing how incredibly significant they are and why this actually matters.

    Its a little tedious after the first fortnight.
    It does preventing them talking bollocks about other things, though
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited July 2023
    The 43% of 2019 Tory voters who want Boris back as an MP cannot be ignored by Rishi however, he needs them voting Tory next year not Reform or staying home.

    Note also while voters overall think Sunak has been a better PM than Johnson by 26% to 21%, 2019 Conservative voters think Johnson was a better PM than Sunak by 35% to 23%. Johnson also has the problem now he has stepped down as MP for Uxbridge he would have to get on the CCHQ approved candidates list to stand as a Tory candidate again and again and that may not happen with Rishi as leader. Corbyn of course blocked from being a Labour candidate by Starmer too and ready to stand as an Indepedent in Islington North
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    The media adores talking about the media and voicing how incredibly significant they are and why this actually matters.

    Its a little tedious after the first fortnight.
    Well, bits of the media. I assume there won't be much soul searching at GBeebies. And there's definitely no link between The S*n and TalkTV so the "we didn't pay the parents for their story" line was definitely not another lie.

    The fascinating bit is the two-faced nature of the BBC. On one hand they protect their vulnerable employee. On the other hand they are happy to report their own salacious gossip about him unprompted.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,031
    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    The media adores talking about the media and voicing how incredibly significant they are and why this actually matters.

    Its a little tedious after the first fortnight.
    It’s important that powerful people engaging in dodgy activity are held to account, but it really shouldn’t be leading the news.

    Meanwhile, Biden is mobilising reserves and posting them to Europe, in what’s clearly the start of implementing what was agreed at the NATO summit. To the untrained eye, it looks like a renewed determination to see this war won quickly in Ukraine’s favour.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    Because it isn't happening and won't happen?
    Ah it must be a vile Tory plot.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148
    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    A somewhat similar Ken Livingstone story (reported in Private Eye), was not published by the Guardian on the grounds of privacy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    The media adores talking about the media and voicing how incredibly significant they are and why this actually matters.

    Its a little tedious after the first fortnight.
    It does preventing them talking bollocks about other things, though
    A winning argument. I concede.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    The media adores talking about the media and voicing how incredibly significant they are and why this actually matters.

    Its a little tedious after the first fortnight.
    It’s important that powerful people engaging in dodgy activity are held to account, but it really shouldn’t be leading the news.

    Meanwhile, Biden is mobilising reserves and posting them to Europe, in what’s clearly the start of implementing what was agreed at the NATO summit. To the untrained eye, it looks like a renewed determination to see this war won quickly in Ukraine’s favour.
    I suspect some of the border states, of which we now have 2 more, are wanting some assurances that the US actually gives a damn, which is a bit of sales pitch after the indifference of Obama and Trump. The more interesting question may be what kit they are bringing with them that they may end up training Ukraine how to use.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,468

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Step back and look at the totals,

    https://www.markpack.org.uk/171016/council-by-election-results-scorecard-2023-2024/

    https://www.markpack.org.uk/168592/council-by-election-results-scorecard/

    and you get Conservatives doing badly but most of the gains going Lib Dem or Green.

    Possible mechanism is that those parties win by throwing the kitchen sink at a single campaign and local by elections are brilliant for that. General elections much less so.

    Possible application for the next GE is that Lib Dem and Green scores will be capped at the number of full on campaigns they can construct. Labour pick up the other swing seats by default on national swing.

    What is known about the independent in Newham?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,256
    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    I think we all had until you just brought it up again.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    That very nearly illustrates the problem - in sharply political environments people are willing to entirely dismiss anything thrown at their people, and obsess about everything that could be thrown at the other people.

    I don't recall much if any reference to Boris with regards to this incident. I've called him things like "liar" and "shagger", but "wife-beater" is only something I've used to describe his dad when Boris wanted to give him a gong.

    We really need to try hard to maintain application of the law as being something that is equally applied regardless of who the person is. Nobody is talking about Boris because of Huw Edwards, but he has just committed Contempt of Court. Lawyers on Twitter already pointing out that "do you know who I am" is no defence, and people committing this kind of contempt usually go to jail.

    So the argument concocted always alleges that the entire action - in this case the Public Enquiry into Covid set up by Boris Johnson - is politically biased against their guy - in this case Boris Johnson. So it is unreasonable to apply the law to him...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,031

    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    A somewhat similar Ken Livingstone story (reported in Private Eye), was not published by the Guardian on the grounds of privacy.
    The attitude of many in the media is either to not bring on a civil war, or to report things very selectively, depending on the who rather than the what.

    I suspect it’s now going to be a civil war, and a #MeToo moment for the industry, as has already been the case in the US.

    Look at the war inside the newsroom at the BBC, for an idea of what’s coming. It’s clear that there’s at best resentment, and at worst hatred, between the ‘top talent’ and the rest of the department.

    So long as they first report the actual news, getting the pervs and bullies out of their own industry is something we should all support.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    See also the local elections where Labour got only 35% NEV in May compared to their around 45% poll rating, with the LDs on 20%
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    Book recently reprinted and well recommended. Narrates the use of such things as hydrofluoric acid as rocket fuel. Which is the chemist's equivalent of that Aussie nettle plant we were discussing yesterday.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914
    felix said:

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    Because it isn't happening and won't happen?
    Ah it must be a vile Tory plot.
    If by "Tory plot" you are including the unilateral actions of the Tory client media/ Tory media shills you are probably right.

    The Tory party don't request that the BBC is hounded and GBeebies isn't, however I have no doubt when the one is pursued relentlessly and the other isn't, the Party grandees crack a wry smile.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    felix said:

    felix said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    Of course. Why ever not?
    Because it isn't happening and won't happen?
    Ah it must be a vile Tory plot.
    Not explicitly. The wealthy and well-connected have always been given preferential treatment. But there is definitely a dead-cat nature to this Huw Edwards story - create a massive stink that becomes the focus so that the stuff you don't want people looking at slips past quietly.

    As for "why", we know why. Tabloid media go into bat for their team hoping for favours. In the case of the Daily Mail, Dacre was after a peerage or to chair OFCOM. News International are battling with GBeebies for its new TalkTV outlet to finish second bottom on ratings and want to take the BBC down as hard as possible. That a lot of Tories especially Johnsonite Tories also want the same is entirely coincidental of course...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    edited July 2023
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    I think we all had until you just brought it up again.
    That makes me think of the apocryphal slob* I heard about in my student days, who OD'd on beer and hot dogs, chundered, and then picked out the frank bits from his technicolor yawn and reconsumed them. It's beginning to feel like that, with all this media presenter stuff, I have to admit.

    *Speaking of the media generally. No reference to Nigelb or Tlg86 or RP intended.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,256

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    *If* metallic hydrogen is metastable for long periods, that could be a game-changer.

    (Metallic hydrogen is a form of compressed hydrogen that exhibits metallic properties. If it has been created, it has only been created in tiny portions. Metastable means it won't immediately change when pressure is released, and remains metallic for an unknown period. But the energy cost of creating the metallic hydrogen might be more than the metallic hydrogen can store. IANAE, AIUI etc.)
    No one has presented any convincing reason why metallic hydrogen should be even vaguely stable at STP. It would be cool and everything but I think it pretty unlikely.
    There's no need to explore the realms of science fiction if it's just used as an industrial feedstock.
    Economic large scale hydrogen production via electrolysis probably isn't that far off, particularly where electricity is very cheap (Middle East solar).

    It will become really interesting when the same can be done efficiently for CO2, which is a bit further off (and also less thermodynamically efficient).
    https://kananlab.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020NatComm.pdf
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    A somewhat similar Ken Livingstone story (reported in Private Eye), was not published by the Guardian on the grounds of privacy.
    The attitude of many in the media is either to not bring on a civil war, or to report things very selectively, depending on the who rather than the what.

    I suspect it’s now going to be a civil war, and a #MeToo moment for the industry, as has already been the case in the US.

    Look at the war inside the newsroom at the BBC, for an idea of what’s coming. It’s clear that there’s at best resentment, and at worst hatred, between the ‘top talent’ and the rest of the department.

    So long as they first report the actual news, getting the pervs and bullies out of their own industry is something we should all support.
    The shocker being that the bullies are the ones who have traditionally done best in the news industry. Though best not to call Edwards a perv at this point - that story was a lie.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    o/t but nice story about the sarsen valley near the Hardy Monument in Dorset:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/14/hugely-exciting-and-rare-neolithic-polishing-stone-found-in-dorset
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,228
    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    So called independents revealing themselves to be closet Tories.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    I think we all had until you just brought it up again.
    Why do you do that? You know full well the point I’m making. The left / remainers didn’t stand up for Johnson back then in the way they are standing up for Huw Edwards.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Carnyx said:

    o/t but nice story about the sarsen valley near the Hardy Monument in Dorset:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/14/hugely-exciting-and-rare-neolithic-polishing-stone-found-in-dorset

    I'm sure @Leon is a regular customer.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    o/t but nice story about the sarsen valley near the Hardy Monument in Dorset:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/14/hugely-exciting-and-rare-neolithic-polishing-stone-found-in-dorset

    I'm sure @Leon is a regular customer.
    PB pedantry: not flint but silcrete, silicified sandstone. Might not be up to his standards. Also worked not so much by knapping flakes off, as wearing down by chipping and grinding.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    o/t but nice story about the sarsen valley near the Hardy Monument in Dorset:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/14/hugely-exciting-and-rare-neolithic-polishing-stone-found-in-dorset

    I'm sure @Leon is a regular customer.
    PB pedantry: not flint but silcrete, silicified sandstone. Might not be up to his standards. Also worked not so much by knapping flakes off, as wearing down by chipping and grinding.
    I stand corrected.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148
    edited July 2023
    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    Book recently reprinted and well recommended. Narrates the use of such things as hydrofluoric acid as rocket fuel. Which is the chemist's equivalent of that Aussie nettle plant we were discussing yesterday.
    HF is perfume* compared to some things out there.

    Real Men make Chlorine Triflouride.

    *Not the FSB range of scents
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,228
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    *If* metallic hydrogen is metastable for long periods, that could be a game-changer.

    (Metallic hydrogen is a form of compressed hydrogen that exhibits metallic properties. If it has been created, it has only been created in tiny portions. Metastable means it won't immediately change when pressure is released, and remains metallic for an unknown period. But the energy cost of creating the metallic hydrogen might be more than the metallic hydrogen can store. IANAE, AIUI etc.)
    No one has presented any convincing reason why metallic hydrogen should be even vaguely stable at STP. It would be cool and everything but I think it pretty unlikely.
    There's no need to explore the realms of science fiction if it's just used as an industrial feedstock.
    Economic large scale hydrogen production via electrolysis probably isn't that far off, particularly where electricity is very cheap (Middle East solar).

    It will become really interesting when the same can be done efficiently for CO2, which is a bit further off (and also less thermodynamically efficient).
    https://kananlab.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020NatComm.pdf
    Haldor Topsoe offer a process for the electrolytic conversion of CO2 to CO.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,557
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    o/t but nice story about the sarsen valley near the Hardy Monument in Dorset:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/14/hugely-exciting-and-rare-neolithic-polishing-stone-found-in-dorset

    I'm sure @Leon is a regular customer.
    PB pedantry: not flint but silcrete, silicified sandstone. Might not be up to his standards. Also worked not so much by knapping flakes off, as wearing down by chipping and grinding.
    I stand corrected.
    You wear orthopaedic shoes?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,352
    HYUFD said:

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    See also the local elections where Labour got only 35% NEV in May compared to their around 45% poll rating, with the LDs on 20%
    There doesn't seem to be a punitive element to local by-election results for the Tories. This has been the case for most of this year.

    Indeed Labour in May outperformed their local by-election results by 2-3%, and the Tories underperformed similarly. There are analyses that their 9% NEV lead probably understates their national position at this point in the cycle.

    And I think a lot of potential Labour voters have got sight of local alternatives in recent years due to the swing left and back to the centre. I was a pretty solid Labour LE voter until 2015 but haven't returned to the LE fold post-Corbyn. Won't affect my GE journey home.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    edited July 2023
    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,947

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Just adding to @Stuartinromford usual excellent reply, local and general elections are different as are by elections. LDs, Greens and Indies do far better in local elections, LDs do far better in by elections that they target. You can't compare like for like, but you can see trends.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    *If* metallic hydrogen is metastable for long periods, that could be a game-changer.

    (Metallic hydrogen is a form of compressed hydrogen that exhibits metallic properties. If it has been created, it has only been created in tiny portions. Metastable means it won't immediately change when pressure is released, and remains metallic for an unknown period. But the energy cost of creating the metallic hydrogen might be more than the metallic hydrogen can store. IANAE, AIUI etc.)
    No one has presented any convincing reason why metallic hydrogen should be even vaguely stable at STP. It would be cool and everything but I think it pretty unlikely.
    There's no need to explore the realms of science fiction if it's just used as an industrial feedstock.
    Economic large scale hydrogen production via electrolysis probably isn't that far off, particularly where electricity is very cheap (Middle East solar).

    It will become really interesting when the same can be done efficiently for CO2, which is a bit further off (and also less thermodynamically efficient).
    https://kananlab.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020NatComm.pdf
    Haldor Topsoe offer a process for the electrolytic conversion of CO2 to CO.
    Electrolysis to make hydrogen is inefficient for fundamental physics reasons. There is some interesting research being done with catalysts.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,256
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    I think we all had until you just brought it up again.
    Why do you do that? You know full well the point I’m making. The left / remainers didn’t stand up for Johnson back then in the way they are standing up for Huw Edwards.

    I'm not sure the cases are particularly comparable ?

    The contentious issue about the Edwards affair was the Sun's dishonest reporting implying criminality.
    I don't think very many were arguing that it shouldn't have been reported at all.

    Edwards' alleged non criminal conduct is being examined by his employers, and I'm quite happy to leave it at that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    @PeoplesMomentum
    'When appeals are not even heard..

    And *100%* of those that are heard are rejected..

    And left-wingers are blocked en masses from selections...

    Then pluralism, democracy & due process are dying in Starmer's Labour.'
    https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1679453208651939840?s=20
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    Boris: he's not wanted back but unless to facilitate a chicken run, why step down in the first place?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,393
    HYUFD said:

    @PeoplesMomentum
    'When appeals are not even heard..

    And *100%* of those that are heard are rejected..

    And left-wingers are blocked en masses from selections...

    Then pluralism, democracy & due process are dying in Starmer's Labour.'
    https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1679453208651939840?s=20

    Oh, you'll soon be voting for SKS? Especially with him being a knight and all.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    As mentioned a day or two ago, something on AI and the potential for election shenanigans in 2024:

    https://medium.com/@rkilner/will-ai-and-politics-collide-2024-2600a9634297

    I think something that makes that a bigger risk than it might've been is the polarisation (starker right now in the US than here) with more people holding entrenched views. Easier to believe your foe has been praising Satan if you already think he worships the Devil.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    kjh said:

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Just adding to @Stuartinromford usual excellent reply, local and general elections are different as are by elections. LDs, Greens and Indies do far better in local elections, LDs do far better in by elections that they target. You can't compare like for like, but you can see trends.
    My memory of when Blair was LOTO was that this result in Dinington would never happen, Im sure that during 1994-1996 the conservative vote never went up in any Local By-Election. Last week we had a Con gain and now this Con hold with their vote going up. Even in Wall End Newham last night the Con vote doubled from the previous election.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Polls ask how people will vote at a GE not how they will vote for their local councillor. Poor result for Labour certainly but next week's by-elections will give a better indication of how accurate current national polling is.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,256

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    *If* metallic hydrogen is metastable for long periods, that could be a game-changer.

    (Metallic hydrogen is a form of compressed hydrogen that exhibits metallic properties. If it has been created, it has only been created in tiny portions. Metastable means it won't immediately change when pressure is released, and remains metallic for an unknown period. But the energy cost of creating the metallic hydrogen might be more than the metallic hydrogen can store. IANAE, AIUI etc.)
    No one has presented any convincing reason why metallic hydrogen should be even vaguely stable at STP. It would be cool and everything but I think it pretty unlikely.
    There's no need to explore the realms of science fiction if it's just used as an industrial feedstock.
    Economic large scale hydrogen production via electrolysis probably isn't that far off, particularly where electricity is very cheap (Middle East solar).

    It will become really interesting when the same can be done efficiently for CO2, which is a bit further off (and also less thermodynamically efficient).
    https://kananlab.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020NatComm.pdf
    Haldor Topsoe offer a process for the electrolytic conversion of CO2 to CO.
    Unlike hydrogen, though, I don't think anyone's doing it at scale.

    There's also the problem of feedstock - water is easy; getting bulk clean CO2 in industrial quantities and cheaply isn't.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.

    As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.

    Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,685
    I've worked with many dangerous chemicals in a long career but HF is the one thing I am scared of.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    kjh said:

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Just adding to @Stuartinromford usual excellent reply, local and general elections are different as are by elections. LDs, Greens and Indies do far better in local elections, LDs do far better in by elections that they target. You can't compare like for like, but you can see trends.
    All this is true; in a particular the result one tiny ward no-one has heard of isn't a trend. But being PB there are betting implications in the current picture. IMHO the thing to look out for is the possibility of the betting markets overstating the real chance of Labour obtaining a majority (325/6) seats. This requires them winning a further 125 seats approximately, and while this is probable it is so far from certain that the value may be in NOM.

    My current guess is that the outcome of the next GE will be fairly close between Lab majority and falling slightly short. (My preference would be a Lab/LD coalition, and I have not given up on it yet).

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    HYUFD said:

    @PeoplesMomentum
    'When appeals are not even heard..

    And *100%* of those that are heard are rejected..

    And left-wingers are blocked en masses from selections...

    Then pluralism, democracy & due process are dying in Starmer's Labour.'
    https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1679453208651939840?s=20

    They need to stand on their own

    If they cut a deal with pissed off tories where they stand too, we could have an interesting election instead of the usual see saw voting
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Good morning, everyone.

    As mentioned a day or two ago, something on AI and the potential for election shenanigans in 2024:

    https://medium.com/@rkilner/will-ai-and-politics-collide-2024-2600a9634297

    I think something that makes that a bigger risk than it might've been is the polarisation (starker right now in the US than here) with more people holding entrenched views. Easier to believe your foe has been praising Satan if you already think he worships the Devil.

    Give it 10 years, the debate will be whether AIs should should be using the same toilets as meat people.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437
    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    It is a Tory trope that the BBC hates them, but George Osborne's wedding was attended by Nick Robinson, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel, oh, and of course, Thea Rogers.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.

    As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.

    Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
    Yes the DG/Chair was the other thing my friend mentioned but as you note, I can't see how that directly translates into the journalists' content.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,685
    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.

    FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.

    As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.

    Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
    I think the BBC is pretty good at being neutral generally (I use radio a lot and telly hardly at all). However, true of serious media generally, the real bias tends to be not in how subject X is covered, but in story/newsworthyness selection.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    I think we all had until you just brought it up again.
    Why do you do that? You know full well the point I’m making. The left / remainers didn’t stand up for Johnson back then in the way they are standing up for Huw Edwards.

    So wait, the Huw Edwards thing is a(nother) remain/leftist indicator now?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,975
    Disgraceful.

    Humza Yousaf has become embroiled in a cronyism row after helping his actor friend Martin Compston secure a Scottish coronavirus vaccination appointment for a Hollywood star.

    As health secretary, Yousaf told his officials to “action” a plea from the SNP-supporting actor who was “hitting a brick wall” trying to get Emily Hampshire, a Canadian co-star in the TV drama The Rig, vaccinated before filming began in Edinburgh.

    In an email which began “Hey mate hope you’re well”, the Line of Duty actor asked for a “bit of advice” about arranging a vaccine for Hampshire, who also starred in the hit sitcom Schitt’s Creek.

    The request was made amid concerns about the virus spreading on set.

    Yousaf, now the first minister, forwarded the email to his private office, who passed it to the Scottish government’s health policy team. They in turn sent it to NHS Lothian, as the local health board, which arranged an appointment for Hampshire.

    The intervention, which appears to have allowed the Canadian actress to jump the queue for a jab, prompted calls for Yousaf to refer himself to the ethical standards commissioner for a possible breach of the ministerial code.

    Compston is a long-time supporter of the SNP and Scottish independence. He was billed as the main attraction in Yousaf’s official online campaign launch for the Holyrood 2021 election and starred in a promotional video for the party before the 2015 general election, when they swept the board north of the border.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/humza-yousaf-helped-martin-compston-get-covid-jab-appointment-for-co-star-tfqqbjdqg
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    It is a Tory trope that the BBC hates them, but George Osborne's wedding was attended by Nick Robinson, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel, oh, and of course, Thea Rogers.
    One of the little secrets of British politics is that a number of the Tories Are Scum brigade are actually very good friends with Tories.

    Attended a wedding, a long time ago, and a minor Labour pol was trying to make sure that he wasn’t photographed with the happy couple. Despite sitting at the top table…
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Mr. 1000, people disagreeing can feel like an attack on the morality or judgement/intelligence of the person holding the view. For most people it's a lot easier being friends with someone who thinks they're right about everything.

    I'm more enlightened. Perfectly happy to be friends with Mr. Eagles, despite his deviant view of Caesar being a better general than Hannibal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769

    Disgraceful.

    Humza Yousaf has become embroiled in a cronyism row after helping his actor friend Martin Compston secure a Scottish coronavirus vaccination appointment for a Hollywood star.

    As health secretary, Yousaf told his officials to “action” a plea from the SNP-supporting actor who was “hitting a brick wall” trying to get Emily Hampshire, a Canadian co-star in the TV drama The Rig, vaccinated before filming began in Edinburgh.

    In an email which began “Hey mate hope you’re well”, the Line of Duty actor asked for a “bit of advice” about arranging a vaccine for Hampshire, who also starred in the hit sitcom Schitt’s Creek.

    The request was made amid concerns about the virus spreading on set.

    Yousaf, now the first minister, forwarded the email to his private office, who passed it to the Scottish government’s health policy team. They in turn sent it to NHS Lothian, as the local health board, which arranged an appointment for Hampshire.

    The intervention, which appears to have allowed the Canadian actress to jump the queue for a jab, prompted calls for Yousaf to refer himself to the ethical standards commissioner for a possible breach of the ministerial code.

    Compston is a long-time supporter of the SNP and Scottish independence. He was billed as the main attraction in Yousaf’s official online campaign launch for the Holyrood 2021 election and starred in a promotional video for the party before the 2015 general election, when they swept the board north of the border.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/humza-yousaf-helped-martin-compston-get-covid-jab-appointment-for-co-star-tfqqbjdqg

    He sounds almost as bad as the Tories.

    (Calling him a Tory is *really* going to piss off both his remaining supporters, isn't it? I just hope they don't read PB.)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    It's probably a mix of its being a Red Wall seat, and Labour still suffering (rightly) from the record of the local council.

    Even in May, there were places where the Conservatives pulled off good results (eg East Cambs., Slough, Torbay, Bedford, Leicester) due to local factors. That is a difference from 1994-96, were results were just appalling everywhere.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.

    FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
    Yes there's plenty wrong with it.

    And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,769
    Miklosvar said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    As mentioned a day or two ago, something on AI and the potential for election shenanigans in 2024:

    https://medium.com/@rkilner/will-ai-and-politics-collide-2024-2600a9634297

    I think something that makes that a bigger risk than it might've been is the polarisation (starker right now in the US than here) with more people holding entrenched views. Easier to believe your foe has been praising Satan if you already think he worships the Devil.

    Give it 10 years, the debate will be whether AIs should should be using the same toilets as meat people.
    Will they still be a bit shit then?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.

    FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
    Upsetting both sides is not proof of balance, but it is evidence of not being one sided.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How safe would it be to use Hydrogen in homes?

    So long as we bond each hydrogen atom with two oxygen ones, I believe there is an exciting future for its use in homes.
    Do you mean two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen one?

    Or is HO2 some new wonder fuel you’re working on?
    Whoops.
    Well…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroperoxyl

    Apparently you can… stabilise it at cryogenic temperatures. If you could make enough.

    It would be an interesting experiment in the sense of Ignition!* interesting.

    *a legendary book on the early days of research into rocket fuels. The experiments described are not so much “don’t try this at home” as “don’t try this in a remotely controlled bunker, in a desert area, while in a separate bunker. Several miles away.”
    Book recently reprinted and well recommended. Narrates the use of such things as hydrofluoric acid as rocket fuel. Which is the chemist's equivalent of that Aussie nettle plant we were discussing yesterday.
    HF is perfume* compared to some things out there.

    Real Men make Chlorine Triflouride.

    *Not the FSB range of scents
    I thought Hydrogen Fluoride was odourless which is why when you undo the trisure bung and give it a hearty sniff you keel over and it's goodnight Vienna.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    edited July 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    The BBC largely does it's job as a neutral platform. As the literal voice of the establishment it pisses off the left. And as a den of leftie woke liberals it pisses off the right.

    As an example, Laura K seems to wind up a lot of people with her "bias" but so many of the accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. People call others biased when they don't say what they think.

    Where the been has crossed the line has been the imposition of direct Tory party plants to head BBC News, be DG and Chair. Though their malign influence the left alleges is so subtle as to hardly be an issue. Not compared to right wing tabloids anyway.
    There was a very famous media study done by Ben Gurion University in Israel. They took footage of the Gaza strip and a team of students, half Israeli half Palestinian, spend some time crafting an incredibly neutral - solely fact based - story that they claimed was played on television. They asked both Israeli and Palestinian students to opine on which TV channel it was shown, whether it was biased, how it was biased, etc.

    Everyone thought the story was biased. Israelis thought it pro-Palestinian. Palestinians thought it pro-Israeli. Because it didn't show the narrative they wanted (their side good, the other bad), it was inherently considered to be the work of political opponents.

    It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced.
    Do you have a link to that study, Robert?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,832
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.

    FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
    Yes there's plenty wrong with it.

    And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
    They used to get any tit* in to give 'balance' on climate change. I'm glad they've stopped doing that. What they should do is find someone in the field with a different view on prediction X or possibly two people. For each IPCC report, for example, you'd be able to find climate scientists thinking it was too pessimistic and too optimistic (although probably more of the latter).

    *although, quite often it was James Delingpole
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,947

    kjh said:

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Just adding to @Stuartinromford usual excellent reply, local and general elections are different as are by elections. LDs, Greens and Indies do far better in local elections, LDs do far better in by elections that they target. You can't compare like for like, but you can see trends.
    My memory of when Blair was LOTO was that this result in Dinington would never happen, Im sure that during 1994-1996 the conservative vote never went up in any Local By-Election. Last week we had a Con gain and now this Con hold with their vote going up. Even in Wall End Newham last night the Con vote doubled from the previous election.
    See @algarkirk excellent post in reply to me. You can't see a trend in one or even two local by-elections, particularly without knowing specific circumstances. One flag for instance is the indy vote drop who was probably a different indy. The idea that the Tories never went up in a single local by election during the time period you gave is exceedingly unlikely. There will have been cases where a popular Indy has died or a Labour/LD has resigned in disgrace, or a Lab/LD council has screwed up badly and a Tory candidate has benefited against the trend.

    Looking at one or two events, specially without local knowledge, only benefits the bookmaker.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144
    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    More media presenter outrage stories overnight, and a week ago I was reading *that* email.

    People made very clear that the allegations against Edwards needed to be investigated. I must assume that principle applies to these other people as well...?

    There’s nothing stopping anyone investigating the claims against George Osborne.

    Bringing together this subject and the subject of the header, I’d forgotten about this episode:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-carrie-symonds-argument-womens-rights-domestic-violence-a8970391.html

    At this point none of us know exactly what happened on Thursday night between our potential future prime minister and his partner, and we may never know. All I want to say on the specifics of that incident is that I hope Carrie Symonds is okay; I hope she wasn’t hurt, and I hope she didn’t feel threatened. In these circumstances, she deserves absolute respect and privacy.

    I don’t remember anyone dropping this when the police said “nothing to see here.”
    I think we all had until you just brought it up again.
    Why do you do that? You know full well the point I’m making. The left / remainers didn’t stand up for Johnson back then in the way they are standing up for Huw Edwards.

    So wait, the Huw Edwards thing is a(nother) remain/leftist indicator now?
    All part of the Woke conspiracy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,148
    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    As mentioned a day or two ago, something on AI and the potential for election shenanigans in 2024:

    https://medium.com/@rkilner/will-ai-and-politics-collide-2024-2600a9634297

    I think something that makes that a bigger risk than it might've been is the polarisation (starker right now in the US than here) with more people holding entrenched views. Easier to believe your foe has been praising Satan if you already think he worships the Devil.

    Give it 10 years, the debate will be whether AIs should should be using the same toilets as meat people.
    Will they still be a bit shit then?
    The evidence so far is that *AI* is a technology that allows us to instantiate as many lying racists as you want.

    Yes, it’s Donald Fucking Trump.

    I was always amused by the belief that AI would be noble and intelligent - even if evil. But this is a bit of a disappointment.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 935
    Local by election yesterday in a Lib Dem target area:-
    Chippenham (Wiltshire) Town Council Byelection Sheldon Ward result:
    Churchman (Con)127 (17.6%)
    Clarke (Ind) 112 (16.6%)
    Ward (LD) 481 (66.8%)
    I suppose this is the other side of the story as against Dinnington.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    @alexwickham
    NEW:

    '— Rachel Reeves sends personal letters to Tory donors inviting them to 1-1 breakfasts

    — ramping up of Labour outreach to biz/City with direct pitch to Tory backers

    — one donor who got an invite open to meeting. Another already met Labour officials'
    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1679748602678091777?s=20
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    First non Labour Councillor on Newham Council for over a decade

    One of the many Socialists expelled from Labour wins against SKS puppet.

    He says he was "falsely accused" of liking an antisemitic cartoon in 2018 and standing up for Jo Bird the Socialist Jew when she was accused of being a Socialist i mean Anti Semite and expelled.

    My Party came 3rd with a very decent 21%

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    1h
    Boleyn (Newham) council by-election result:

    IND: 42.5% (+42.5)
    LAB: 32.1% (-27.0)
    GRN: 21.1% (+3.5)
    CON: 2.5% (-15.6)
    REF: 0.8% (+0.8)
    LDEM: 0.8% (+0.8)

    Votes cast: 2,710

    Independent GAIN from Labour.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,144

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    It is a Tory trope that the BBC hates them, but George Osborne's wedding was attended by Nick Robinson, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel, oh, and of course, Thea Rogers.
    One of the little secrets of British politics is that a number of the Tories Are Scum brigade are actually very good friends with Tories.

    Attended a wedding, a long time ago, and a minor Labour pol was trying to make sure that he wasn’t photographed with the happy couple. Despite sitting at the top table…
    Not too surprising. There are loads of people here whose politics I find repellent, but would happily have a pint with at a PB meet up.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,832
    HYUFD said:

    @alexwickham
    NEW:

    '— Rachel Reeves sends personal letters to Tory donors inviting them to 1-1 breakfasts

    — ramping up of Labour outreach to biz/City with direct pitch to Tory backers

    — one donor who got an invite open to meeting. Another already met Labour officials'
    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1679748602678091777?s=20

    Labour officials' what? Don't leave us hanging HYUFD :disappointed:

    (dogs? families? expectations?)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    Selebian said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.

    FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
    Yes there's plenty wrong with it.

    And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
    They used to get any tit* in to give 'balance' on climate change. I'm glad they've stopped doing that. What they should do is find someone in the field with a different view on prediction X or possibly two people. For each IPCC report, for example, you'd be able to find climate scientists thinking it was too pessimistic and too optimistic (although probably more of the latter).

    *although, quite often it was James Delingpole
    Yes. My friend wouldn't have objected to a climate scientist, but it made his blood boil to see Nigel Lawson rolled out.

    But I don't think they would have someone as you suggest either, that said.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Selebian said:

    HYUFD said:

    @alexwickham
    NEW:

    '— Rachel Reeves sends personal letters to Tory donors inviting them to 1-1 breakfasts

    — ramping up of Labour outreach to biz/City with direct pitch to Tory backers

    — one donor who got an invite open to meeting. Another already met Labour officials'
    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1679748602678091777?s=20

    Labour officials' what? Don't leave us hanging HYUFD :disappointed:

    (dogs? families? expectations?)
    under age daughters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited July 2023

    First non Labour Councillor on Newham Council for over a decade

    One of the many Socialists expelled from Labour wins against SKS puppet.

    He says he was "falsely accused" of liking an antisemitic cartoon in 2018 and standing up for Jo Bird the Socialist Jew when she was accused of being a Socialist i mean Anti Semite and expelled.

    My Party came 3rd with a very decent 21%

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    1h
    Boleyn (Newham) council by-election result:

    IND: 42.5% (+42.5)
    LAB: 32.1% (-27.0)
    GRN: 21.1% (+3.5)
    CON: 2.5% (-15.6)
    REF: 0.8% (+0.8)
    LDEM: 0.8% (+0.8)

    Votes cast: 2,710

    Independent GAIN from Labour.

    I am sure Sir Keir will be terrified at the small swing in Newham from overwhelmingly Labour to slightly less overwhelmingly Labour as Corbynites like you have a tantrum and vote Independent or Green
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,914

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.

    FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
    I suspect the BBC likes to be patriotically supportive of the Government of the day and sometimes this offends the Opposition of the day.

    My biggest beef with the BBC is it's balancing or equalising for example Patrick Minford's view as equal to the million economists who say his analysis is tosh.

    Making out Beergate to he as egregious as Partygate was another fail in the interests of "balance"

    The most absurd is the one I always bang on about "Boris and the curious case of the Cenotaph".

    Edwards was the most egregious proponent when it came to throwing in an absurdity to ensure non -partisanship.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,947
    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Just adding to @Stuartinromford usual excellent reply, local and general elections are different as are by elections. LDs, Greens and Indies do far better in local elections, LDs do far better in by elections that they target. You can't compare like for like, but you can see trends.
    All this is true; in a particular the result one tiny ward no-one has heard of isn't a trend. But being PB there are betting implications in the current picture. IMHO the thing to look out for is the possibility of the betting markets overstating the real chance of Labour obtaining a majority (325/6) seats. This requires them winning a further 125 seats approximately, and while this is probable it is so far from certain that the value may be in NOM.

    My current guess is that the outcome of the next GE will be fairly close between Lab majority and falling slightly short. (My preference would be a Lab/LD coalition, and I have not given up on it yet).

    My view is Labour will win easily. I am split on whether the LDs will do well or only make minor gains. I certainly wouldn't dismiss your view of the outcome. It is widely held by many informed gamblers and I agree with your comments on the betting opportunities.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,832
    TOPPING said:

    Selebian said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    Although annoying both left and right does not mean that the BBC is balanced.

    FWIW I think the BBC tries very hard to be balanced on most things (not all - there is now no hint of skepticism left when reporting climate science, for instance, when some of the more out there claims/predictions ought to be at best queried). It does, however, tend to skew urban, metropolitan. I don't think it has a clue about the countryside and rural affairs, as shown by Countryfile, which is a programme about the countryside made by city dwellers, for city dwellers.
    Yes there's plenty wrong with it.

    And as for climate, my point to my friend was that they would never dare have someone from "the other side" to argue a different position on climate change.
    They used to get any tit* in to give 'balance' on climate change. I'm glad they've stopped doing that. What they should do is find someone in the field with a different view on prediction X or possibly two people. For each IPCC report, for example, you'd be able to find climate scientists thinking it was too pessimistic and too optimistic (although probably more of the latter).

    *although, quite often it was James Delingpole
    Yes. My friend wouldn't have objected to a climate scientist, but it made his blood boil to see Nigel Lawson rolled out.

    But I don't think they would have someone as you suggest either, that said.
    Thing is*, there is plenty of disagreement between climate scientists. It's unfortunate that the climate deniers caused those in the field to close ranks a bit and be less open about the disagreements, as they would be siezed on by the deniers. Although the range of serious views varies from really quite bad to extinction level bad :wink: But there was a lot of debate about what to do, with serious people saying that there wasn't time/will to change emissions and we should instead focus on mitigation or (smaller group) geo-engineering.

    *at least was ~15 years ago when I was active on the edge of this area
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    SKS's Labour is now unquestionably more right wing than Sunak's Tories. Any progressive-minded voter should be at least as concerned to stop Labour getting in as they are to get the Tories out.

    Outflanked to the left by Sunak on Public Sector Pay being the latest example

    Austerity supporting Labour says it wouldnt pay what the independent pay bodies recommended as it would not be in line with Labours fiscal rules which take precedence.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,972
    Where I think the BBC gets most accused of bias is that it refuses to take a side with regards to what the national norm is. Remainers get pissed off because the QT audience has more Tory / Brexit voters than they think it should have despite them being the last recorded majority. Leavers get pissed off because BBC hacks keep asking the wrong questions and pointing out the wrong facts.

    When it comes to tabloids there are far more on the right than not, but not exclusively. Though tabloid TV really is that biased - a choice of GBeebies or TalkTory. Though the cut through of both is so small as to not be an issue.

    Its a hard job to report on politically divisive issues when the population is divided. Especially when we have had ignorance and stupidity weaponised so that people complain when the Beeb doesn't report their inaccurate non-truth. But that's on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Regardless of how the thing is funded and structured going forward - and the license fee has to go - it would be good to maintain that neutrality as part of its broadcasting license. Leave bullshit and bias for live-on-YouTube clickbait artists like Dan Wootton and Aaron Bastani
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    It's probably a mix of its being a Red Wall seat, and Labour still suffering (rightly) from the record of the local council.

    Even in May, there were places where the Conservatives pulled off good results (eg East Cambs., Slough, Torbay, Bedford, Leicester) due to local factors. That is a difference from 1994-96, were results were just appalling everywhere.
    The Tories had a good result in Bedford solely because they had changed the voting system for mayoral elections to FPTP. Even so they won the mayoralty with less than a third of the vote
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    mickydroy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    CON Hold in Dinnington !

    CON: 42.7% (+6.5)
    LAB: 32.9% (+7.5)
    LDM: 10.5% (+1.5)
    IND: 7.9% (-11.3)
    RFM: 2.4% (New)
    GRN: 2.4% (-7.7)
    Yorks: 1.1% (New)

    Unless someone can tell me off special circumstances in this ward, this is a sign surely, that the Tories will hold on to a number off red wall seats. The moron 30p Lee Anderson, I'm convinced will hold his seat amongst others
    The majority of local by-elections results are not showing any comparrison to the vast Labour leads in the polls. Real votes seem very different to the polls.
    Just adding to @Stuartinromford usual excellent reply, local and general elections are different as are by elections. LDs, Greens and Indies do far better in local elections, LDs do far better in by elections that they target. You can't compare like for like, but you can see trends.
    My memory of when Blair was LOTO was that this result in Dinington would never happen, Im sure that during 1994-1996 the conservative vote never went up in any Local By-Election. Last week we had a Con gain and now this Con hold with their vote going up. Even in Wall End Newham last night the Con vote doubled from the previous election.
    See @algarkirk excellent post in reply to me. You can't see a trend in one or even two local by-elections, particularly without knowing specific circumstances. One flag for instance is the indy vote drop who was probably a different indy. The idea that the Tories never went up in a single local by election during the time period you gave is exceedingly unlikely. There will have been cases where a popular Indy has died or a Labour/LD has resigned in disgrace, or a Lab/LD council has screwed up badly and a Tory candidate has benefited against the trend.

    Looking at one or two events, specially without local knowledge, only benefits the bookmaker.
    I think it is the case though that some centrist swing voters who would have voted for Blair and New Labour in the mid 1990s locally as well as nationally are now voting LD or Independent, certainly locally
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,415
    rcs1000 said:

    ...It turns out humans don't really want impartiality; what they want is their existing preconceptions to be reinforced...

    I already thought that and am pleased that you came to the same conclusion.

    Which is ironic when you think about it.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    So. Is the BBC biased politically (forget Huw Edwards) or not and if it is, which way?

    I saw an old mate of mine last night. To the left, shall we say, and he was fuming that eg The Today Programme might as well be an arm of government.

    Whereas from my right-leaning, civilised, thoughtful perspective I think the BBC leans left.

    I dislike the fact that they always have to so maniacally strive for "balance" and "inclusivity" but I understand it also.

    As they say if we're both convinced of our view then perhaps it is therefore doing something right.

    It is a Tory trope that the BBC hates them, but George Osborne's wedding was attended by Nick Robinson, Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel, oh, and of course, Thea Rogers.
    One of the little secrets of British politics is that a number of the Tories Are Scum brigade are actually very good friends with Tories.

    Attended a wedding, a long time ago, and a minor Labour pol was trying to make sure that he wasn’t photographed with the happy couple. Despite sitting at the top table…
    Not too surprising. There are loads of people here whose politics I find repellent, but would happily have a pint with at a PB meet up.
    Multi party democracy is not a substitute for cooperative playing nicely together, it's a substitute for armed factions killing each other or, the other choice, rule by absolute terror.

This discussion has been closed.