If we fired every past and current Met officer into the heart of the sun would we really miss them?
The Metropolitan Police has agreed an unprecedented £2 million settlement after admitting that the case of an unsolved murder 35 years ago was mired in corruption and incompetence.
The family of Daniel Morgan, a private investigator who was found with an axe embedded in his head in a southeast London pub car park in 1987, will receive one of the biggest payouts in British policing history.
Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner who has promised to clean up the force after a series of scandals, is expected to make a public apology this week for “corruption, incompetence and defensiveness” in its response to the murder.
An independent panel concluded in 2021 that the Met was institutionally corrupt and had repeatedly covered up its failings in the Morgan case to protect its reputation. The panel, led by Baroness O’Loan, said this meant it was unlikely anyone would be brought to justice.
The murder is the most investigated case in British history, with five police inquiries costing £50 million. The Met has admitted that corrupt officers shielded suspects and that later investigations did not adequately chase down leads or examine corruption claims.
The financial settlement brings to an end a long struggle by Morgan’s family. Five remaining relatives, including his brother, Alastair, started a civil claim that alleged misfeasance in public office and breaches of the Human Rights Act.
An official source confirmed to The Times the size of the payout, which also covers the family’s legal fees. It means the force has avoided lengthy civil proceedings.
Even now Sir Mark Rowley refuses to accept the finding of the Morgan Report that his force is "institutionally" corrupt or of the Casey report that its misogyny, racism, homophobia etc is "institutional" and not simply happenstance. If he can't accept the scale and nature of the problem, how can we have any confidence that he can put it right?
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
Posted for no other reason than it shows a dude living his best 3 wristwatches life.
Good breakfast at 93.
I imagine he gets so much per Speedmaster.
Assuming one of them went on mission so is therefore worth a middling fortune.
Slightly worried that he had to have his steak cut up for him, hoping not.
I meant sponsorship from Omega but, yes, if he has 3 equally well worn examples of the relevant model that's 3 potential One True Grails.
Maybe it's his birthday and he got three so had to wear them all so as not to upset anyone.
It is Apollo 11 launch day, Y+54. He was born Jan 20 1930.
One for each of his ex wives, then.
He is an interesting character.
I've read his book 'Magnificent Desolation', and he is an interesting character. He was massively drive by his father's expectations, and going to the Moon made his fame, but destroyed his career.
If you want to read about the Apollo 11 landing, then Collins' "Carrying the Fire" is excellent.
If you want to read about the way worldwide fame destroyed someone, then 'Magnificent Desolation' is equally excellent. Just don't expect to learn much about space from it.
He was a very talented guy, whom the Airforce and NASA failed to make good use of after his moon adventure.
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
Or not.
Energy prices will fall from their peak but are likely to remain well above their pre-2022 for long enough for people to feel little benefit.
Inflation will fall and pay rises may turn net positive by autumn 2024 but even if they do, it'll be after a substantial real-terms cut; people won't be feeling better off.
Mortgage rates for those on fixed-term contracts will be rising hard for anyone renewing over the next 18 months, even if interest rates and mortgage rates peak in the interim. At all points, the market will be way above where it was 2 years earlier, never mind 5 years.
Strikes are mainly in the public sector and the unions know full-well that the political influence of strikes will increase as we head towards an election. Don't expect much drop-off unless Sunak/Hunt get the cheque-book out, which is unlikely.
The NHS backlog in appointments / operations will take a decade to recover from, even if it stops growing, which itself isn't all that likely, particularly if strikes continue. Maybe A&E waits will drop a bit but at best, people will become used to it being a bit rubbish and in the meantime, millions will experience its dysfunction.
The natural return of (some) ex-Con DKs to the Tories should reduce the polling gap but I'd expect that proportion of DKs returning to be a good deal lower than usual because (1) quite a few 2019 Cons were first-time voters for them then so it's not a natural home to return to, and (2) they'll see less imperitive to do so to keep Labour out than they did in 2019, and less positive reason to vote the Tories back in.
I think Kellner understates Labour's chances and isn't factoring in tactical voting sufficiently. Despite the scale of gains Labour needs, which is huge, I reckon it's at least a 70% shot they'll have a majority.
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
...or getting worse.
Yes (and @Mortimer ) but they are pretty bad now and I don't think the difference between a defeat and a slightly heavier defeat is the endgame. Plus economic cycles always cycle, as Gordon Brown refused to believe, even ones which contain exogenous shocks.
Selby and Ainsty is the test for Labour. Win that and they're well on their way.
What would it say if Labour won Selby but didn’t win in Uxbridge?
A degree of Conservative strength in outer London I suppose. I'd be surprised if that happened mind, though they did hold Old Bexley? a while back comfortably.
Yes, around the same time they lost North Shropshire.
Against the LDs, the LD by election machine is like a Rolls Royce, the Labour by election machine more a second hand Ford
Oh dear, that’s two egregious errors today: “Rolls Royce” and “Rolls-Royces”… it’s Rolls-Royce, always a hyphen and never plural*
* beaten into me when working in Rolls-Royce PR department on my sandwich placement.
What kind of things did they have written on your board?
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
"The rate of price growth in Britain is expected to have dropped to 8.2 per cent in June, down from 8.7 per cent in May, the City expects numbers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on Wednesday to unveil."
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
Do you agree with me that freedom of speech has limits?
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
...or getting worse.
Yes (and @Mortimer ) but they are pretty bad now and I don't think the difference between a defeat and a slightly heavier defeat is the endgame. Plus economic cycles always cycle, as Gordon Brown refused to believe, even ones which contain exogenous shocks.
Plus, even if it's as likely that things get worse, we're comparing the certainty of losing early, with the possibility of not losing later, balanced by the possibility of losing more heavily later. It really doesn't make sense to go early in that situation.
Even if the chances of the defeat being worse are much greater than the chance of things improving, the current situation is so bad for the Tories that it makes sense to hold on for the small chance of the situation improving.
Posted for no other reason than it shows a dude living his best 3 wristwatches life.
A man with 1 watch always knows the time. A man with 2 is never sure.
A man with 3 ???
Can go with the majority opinion?
Watches, how quaint :-)
If your watches have a second hands there3 watches will show all show different times.
I have always thoiught that this is a clear application where the mean is probably the wrong answer. A much better approach is to decide which watch is most likely to be accurate and go with that. I'd certainly do this for 2 and usually 3 watches/clocks too.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
Do you agree with me that freedom of speech has limits?
Yes. One shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, or incite violence against individuals.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA. Anything else leads to questions about who sets the standards, starts down a long and slippery slope that ends up with problems like bank accounts being closed arbitrarily.
Selby and Ainsty is the test for Labour. Win that and they're well on their way.
Had a chat with a Lab canvasser yesterday - we're at the end of a run and not far from her house, so she was in no rush. I'd stated we'd already voted Labour* so no real incentive to give any spin. Her assessment was it's pretty close; still some hostility to Labour, mostly on culture war issues and a bit on EU, but much more fertile ground than e.g. 2019 or even recent council elections. Some Con supporters saying they'll sit it out but won't vote Labour. She thought it could go either way, but they had a good chance and were throwing everything at it. Her biggest concern is that people weren't that fired up, even Labour supporters, to actually get out and vote. Some said they'd have come out to stick it to Johnson (post the Covid party revelations) or Truss, but are not that fired in opposition to Sunak.
Caveats - no idea how informed she was, but I have seen her canvassing for Lab in previous elections (and had a chat once before) so could be fairly well connected in the local party.
I'm remaining out of this, having cashed in my original Labour lay, but I do agree with the header over the weekend that there might be ore value in Con now (although most likely as a 'value' loser, which is why I've kept out)
*a lie on my part (well, I said "we've already voted by post and voted for Labour" - first part is true and my wife did vote Labour, so sec. ond bit arguably t. rue) too so if others are also lying then her information will be suspect anyway
This appears to be consistent with the Lord Ashcroft focus group feedback
The LE results were a clear suggestion to me that:
a) Sunak's latest form of Tory Statism isn't popular b) CCHQ still don't realise this
I'm personally looking forward to the left of the party getting smashed, so we can return to proper right of centre pro-growth Conservatism at the subsequent election.
The problem with this is not the basic idea - the thought of rapid growth, smaller state, lower taxes, massively less state managed expenditure and all that is highly attractive.
The obstacles to this are threefold:
No-one has a coherent route, capable of being elected, which gets from here to there.
There is no area of state managed expenditure which is not under pressure to increase by a lot. Try: welfare, pensions, NHS, debt management, education, defence, law and order. Try cutting £200 billion out of those and see how far you get.
After 13 years of centre right government we are still borrowing over £100bn a year at high rates.
So the question is: With figures and a plan what does a traditional right of centre Tory government do? Answers on a postcard to 10 and 11 Downing Street, because currently they have no idea. If they had they would win the next election so its urgent.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
With respect, "Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?" is just bullying. If you have your car repaired by a mechanic who observes to you when you come to pay the bill that only indigenous white people should vote, and vaccines are poison, are you justified in driving off without paying? now that may be a silly answer but it is also valid, which suggests that the question may have been silly. If twitter regards its role as sponsoring and paying for The Debate, I am afraid the Debate includes views which you or I might regard as WD or AV, but which are not obviously illegal. If they are going to be excluded from The Debate, it needs to be for a better reason than that you and I disagree with them. So the answer is, it depends, but in certain circumstances probably yes.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
The LE results were a clear suggestion to me that:
a) Sunak's latest form of Tory Statism isn't popular b) CCHQ still don't realise this
I'm personally looking forward to the left of the party getting smashed, so we can return to proper right of centre pro-growth Conservatism at the subsequent election.
The belief that “Sunak was too left wing” is what will see the Conservatives in opposition for a decade.
Historically we win when we're promoting small state, low tax platform.
Sunak seems to be promoting big state, high tax.
He is less popular than Boris Johnson (!) with people who voted Tory in 2019.
Just because the blob and the media tolerate him, doesn't make him a winner. He couldn't even beat Truss, remember, and has epically failed at the first electoral test. Worse than CCHQ expectations lowering!
Belief in the “blob” is also what will see the Tories in opposition for over a decade. Why adopt a theory the conclusion of which is that you are impotent and bad at your job? I think voters are more interested in political parties that will say they can get things done than political parties that whine that everyone’s against them.
Because it isn't theory.
Anyone who has ever worked in/encountered a government department can see the obvious institutional resistance.
The Conservatives have been in power in one form or another for the past thirteen years. If it is reduced to making continual excuses about why it cannot govern then it is time to relieve it of the responsibility and hand over the reins to somebody else.
I would be surprised if the LibDems were so high, or the Conservatives so low. At 12 points, that would be the smallest Con-LD spread in a long time.
I think that we will get a high protest vote for others, particularly Green.
This would be consistent with the locals and in line with a safety first approach from Labour.
I think that Nick is in the right ball park with his numbers although Labour may go below 40 if they stay boring (cf the relative interviews by Starmer and Blair yesterday). I agree that that Conservatives will struggle to go above 30.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
Do you agree with me that freedom of speech has limits?
Yes. One shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, or incite violence against individuals.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA. Anything else leads to questions about who sets the standards, starts down a long and slippery slope that ends up with problems like bank accounts being closed arbitrarily.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
It's a pretty bad picture/photo-shopping out the background effort. Makes you wonder whether incompetence or malice.
Posted for no other reason than it shows a dude living his best 3 wristwatches life.
A man with 1 watch always knows the time. A man with 2 is never sure.
A man with 3 ???
Can go with the majority opinion?
Watches, how quaint :-)
If your watches have a second hands there3 watches will show all show different times.
I have always thoiught that this is a clear application where the mean is probably the wrong answer. A much better approach is to decide which watch is most likely to be accurate and go with that. I'd certainly do this for 2 and usually 3 watches/clocks too.
You'd be amazed how accurate mechanical watches can be.
The time-telling function of a seconds hand on a watch is secondary anyway, because who needs to know the time to better than a minute? It's really there to confirm that the watch is running and one can therefore have some faith in the hour and minute info. This is expressly stated in the official spec for dive watches (which are however obsolete even by wind up watch standards, because who dives without a computer these days?)
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
- "Hag!" - "I beg your pardon?" - "Evil old woman, considered frightful or ugly. It's twelve down." - "Oh! Bless you."
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
Do you agree with me that freedom of speech has limits?
Yes. One shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, or incite violence against individuals.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA. Anything else leads to questions about who sets the standards, starts down a long and slippery slope that ends up with problems like bank accounts being closed arbitrarily.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
- "Hag!" - "I beg your pardon?" - "Evil old woman, considered frightful or ugly. It's twelve down." - "Oh! Bless you."
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
I believe that the scheme to pay money to creators, should pay money to all creators who meet the criteria, irrespective of their political views, yes.
Even the LGBTblablabla activists calling for porn in primary schools and child genital mutilation. That’s what freedom of speech means.
I like Sunak! It's the rest of the cabinet who are the problem. High scores for Sunak is not salvation for your party. Not with the rest of you dragging it down.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
It's a pretty bad picture/photo-shopping out the background effort. Makes you wonder whether incompetence or malice.
Selby and Ainsty is the test for Labour. Win that and they're well on their way.
Had a chat with a Lab canvasser yesterday - we're at the end of a run and not far from her house, so she was in no rush. I'd stated we'd already voted Labour* so no real incentive to give any spin. Her assessment was it's pretty close; still some hostility to Labour, mostly on culture war issues and a bit on EU, but much more fertile ground than e.g. 2019 or even recent council elections. Some Con supporters saying they'll sit it out but won't vote Labour. She thought it could go either way, but they had a good chance and were throwing everything at it. Her biggest concern is that people weren't that fired up, even Labour supporters, to actually get out and vote. Some said they'd have come out to stick it to Johnson (post the Covid party revelations) or Truss, but are not that fired in opposition to Sunak.
Caveats - no idea how informed she was, but I have seen her canvassing for Lab in previous elections (and had a chat once before) so could be fairly well connected in the local party.
I'm remaining out of this, having cashed in my original Labour lay, but I do agree with the header over the weekend that there might be ore value in Con now (although most likely as a 'value' loser, which is why I've kept out)
*a lie on my part (well, I said "we've already voted by post and voted for Labour" - first part is true and my wife did vote Labour, so sec. ond bit arguably t. rue) too so if others are also lying then her information will be suspect anyway
This appears to be consistent with the Lord Ashcroft focus group feedback
Positive for Lib Dems in Somerton and Frome more balanced in the others.
Mmm, but not one of Ashcroft's clearer focus groups and note that it's 100% 2019 Tory voters, so the general "Dunno really" impression that the groups give suggests real Conservative weakness.
The Tories will lose but not by the sort of margins some are predicting. I suspect Labour by up yo 40 seats but not more. Its only a gut feel but that’s how I see it.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
With respect, "Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?" is just bullying... ..If they are going to be excluded from The Debate, it needs to be for a better reason than that you and I disagree with them. So the answer is, it depends, but in certain circumstances probably yes.
All of which might be a valid argument were those characters being rewarded by an impartial algorithm. For now, though, they are not. They are being selected by management fiat - including the guy charged with rape.
We're not talking about being "excluded from the Debate' - rather about being chosen to be paid.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
With respect, "Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?" is just bullying. If you have your car repaired by a mechanic who observes to you when you come to pay the bill that only indigenous white people should vote, and vaccines are poison, are you justified in driving off without paying? now that may be a silly answer but it is also valid, which suggests that the question may have been silly. If twitter regards its role as sponsoring and paying for The Debate, I am afraid the Debate includes views which you or I might regard as WD or AV, but which are not obviously illegal. If they are going to be excluded from The Debate, it needs to be for a better reason than that you and I disagree with them. So the answer is, it depends, but in certain circumstances probably yes.
If my mechanic espoused such views, I would pay my bill, but not go back. Musk unbanned people who had previously been kicked off Twitter and then created a system to reward them for posting hate speech. That's like going back to the mechanic you had previously sworn off, and then deciding to give them an extra large tip.
Free speech means that people with non-illegal views are allowed to freely express them. Free speech does not mean Twitter promotes their views and pays them to say more.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
With respect, "Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?" is just bullying... ..If they are going to be excluded from The Debate, it needs to be for a better reason than that you and I disagree with them. So the answer is, it depends, but in certain circumstances probably yes.
All of which might be a valid argument were those characters being rewarded by an impartial algorithm. For now, though, they are not. They are being selected by management fiat - including the guy charged with rape.
We're not talking about being "excluded from the Debate' - rather about being chosen to be paid.
Is there any "choosing" going on though? The complaint is surely that they are not being chosen to be not paid.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
It's a pretty bad picture/photo-shopping out the background effort. Makes you wonder whether incompetence or malice.
Unforgivable in 2023. Manual Photoshopping is as quaint as horse drawn buses these days, you just tell an AI to take the background out.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
With respect, "Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?" is just bullying... ..If they are going to be excluded from The Debate, it needs to be for a better reason than that you and I disagree with them. So the answer is, it depends, but in certain circumstances probably yes.
All of which might be a valid argument were those characters being rewarded by an impartial algorithm. For now, though, they are not. They are being selected by management fiat - including the guy charged with rape.
We're not talking about being "excluded from the Debate' - rather about being chosen to be paid.
Is there any "choosing" going on though? The complaint is surely that they are not being chosen to be not paid.
That's what all reporting says. Payment is not automatic.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
But they haven't chosen those people. They have a revenue sharing programme that works independently of any editorial decision-making.
What's your evidence for that? Twitter have not released any details of how their revenue sharing programme works, have they? We know Musk personally intervenes on numerous choices, e.g. handing out some blue ticks for free.
Twitter is a private company. They can set up their revenue sharing programme however they want. They have chosen this outcome. YouTube, for example, choose to de-monetise videos promoting anti-vax and hate speech.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
Yes. All queens are HM, whether reigning or consort.
Philip was only a prince and an HRH by creation - he wouldn't even have been either but for the letters patent creating him so. It's one of the sexist rules that while the female spouses of male royals (and aristocrats for that matter) get titles derived from the one that holds them, it doesn't work the other way round when the person with the title is female.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
With respect, "Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?" is just bullying... ..If they are going to be excluded from The Debate, it needs to be for a better reason than that you and I disagree with them. So the answer is, it depends, but in certain circumstances probably yes.
All of which might be a valid argument were those characters being rewarded by an impartial algorithm. For now, though, they are not. They are being selected by management fiat - including the guy charged with rape.
We're not talking about being "excluded from the Debate' - rather about being chosen to be paid.
Is there any "choosing" going on though? The complaint is surely that they are not being chosen to be not paid.
That's what all reporting says. Payment is not automatic.
For now, the only users getting paid are ones who meet specific criteria. They must be a verified user — meaning, they pay for a blue check mark or have been gifted one — have 5 million impressions, or views, on posts in each of the last three months, and have a Stripe account linked to their Twitter account.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
The people listed are not ‘white supremacists and anti-vaxxers’, so it’s a moot point.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
But they haven't chosen those people. They have a revenue sharing programme that works independently of any editorial decision-making.
What's your evidence for that? Twitter have not released any details of how their revenue sharing programme works, have they? We know Musk personally intervenes on numerous choices, e.g. handing out some blue ticks for free.
Twitter is a private company. They can set up their revenue sharing programme however they want. They have chosen this outcome. YouTube, for example, choose to de-monetise videos promoting anti-vax and hate speech.
And videos with more than a few seconds of an Eagles song,
Yes. One shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, or incite violence against individuals.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA...
The bit is bold isn't the legal standard in the USA. You are allowed in the USA to incite violence against individuals. The exception comes when you are inciting it to a person who is able to carry out the act immediately.
If Batman calls for Lex Luthor to be killed, then that is legal in the US.
If Batman calls to Robin for Lex Luthor to be killed whilst Robin is standing next to Lex with a gun pointed at his head, then that is not legal in the US
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
It's a pretty bad picture/photo-shopping out the background effort. Makes you wonder whether incompetence or malice.
Unforgivable in 2023. Manual Photoshopping is as quaint as horse drawn buses these days, you just tell an AI to take the background out.
Nowadays you probably just ask the AI for "flattering photo-realistic image of the Queen".
Although maybe, given the training data, that invariably gives you the wrong 'queen'.
Four new w/e polls from Spain. Two showing comfortable and slightly rising support for the PP in the 9% lead range. Two others also see slightly rising support for PP but in the 3/4% lead range. No idea which, if any, are right but it could be the difference between a comfy PP/Vox majority or no feasible majority for any group apart from the Grand Coalition. I think the latter is unlikely and that, on balance the Socialists are going to lose... assuming things remain as they are.
For thise interested barely any sign there is a GE in my area with very few posters - the Spanish don't put them in their houses - anywhere. Basically we're all on hollibobs here and the politics is very much a sideshow.
On topic: Curtice's conclusion is the hunch of an expert rather than analysis, but still to given some weight.
Swing back has been the cry throughout when Labour were 5 points up, 10 points up, 15 points up, 20 points up, 30 points up, to which I've been responding, yes, but from where?
Well, Sunak's honeymoon has now wound down after the May elections, and the three by-elections are going to be the next scene setters of the political landscape - Sunak the fighter or Starmer PM in waiting and that will shift the dial a couple of points.
The former will set the clock ticking on swing back, the latter cement Starmer as PM in waiting, and bring us into the "what will Labour do" phase. The boost will mean no swing back for a month or two and Labour starting a few points better, but that phase is still coming quite soon.
In any case, let the dust settle, and it will be time to call swing back.
Yes, Musk and friends way overpaid, and are probably going to have to put a load more cash in at some point.
"Because a business is unsustainable when millions of industrial-scale users are paying nothing for it."
I don't pay anything directly for Google and Facebook. Obviously I pay indirectly, through advertising costs, but they're free to me as an end-user. They are both profitable because they understand their customers.
The 'customers' are not you and me, but the advertisers. Now, ask yourself how Twitter can attract advertisers to a platform that in the name of 'free speech' allows anyone to say virtually anything. Where their ads might be served alongside (say) neo-Nazi comments.
Which is another reason YouTube et al get 'overly censorious'.
As I've said passim, Musk simply does not understand advertising.
He's now paying mainly right wing posters with a large following an ad revenue share. I'm not clear how this will help the finances.
That claims says more about your information bubble than about Twitter or Musk. Do you have any evidence that ad revenue payouts are going mainly to right wing posters?
What happened is that a lot of left-liberal political commentators refused to pay for Twitter Blue when it started, so now they’re complaining about being left out of the payments, and writing articles in the MSM about Twitter supporting only “the far right”. The reality is that the payments have gone to people with all sorts of opinions, so long as they paid the subscription that included the monetisation features.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers?
Should a left-wing hate-group like Media Matters, be the arbiter of who is allowed to be paid by Twitter?
Looking at their actual list, the names are mostly middle-of-the-road conservative and libertarian commentators, with a lot of guilt-by-association.
The only one I really don’t like is Andrew Tate, and he has way more things to worry about right now than a $20k cheque from Twitter.
On the general point, if Twitter sets up a creator monetisation programme, then no they shouldn’t kick people out of it because of their political views.
Whoever said Media Matters should be the arbiter? You wanted examples; we've given you examples.
Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?
Do you think it's a good thing that Jacob Creech, who started the Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory, has received thousands of dollars from Twitter for his actions?
Do you think advertisers are going to flock to Twitter knowing that the money they pay is going to Tate, Creech etc.?
With respect, "Do you think Twitter should be giving money to white supremacists and anti-vaxxers? Yes or no?" is just bullying... ..If they are going to be excluded from The Debate, it needs to be for a better reason than that you and I disagree with them. So the answer is, it depends, but in certain circumstances probably yes.
All of which might be a valid argument were those characters being rewarded by an impartial algorithm. For now, though, they are not. They are being selected by management fiat - including the guy charged with rape.
We're not talking about being "excluded from the Debate' - rather about being chosen to be paid.
Is there any "choosing" going on though? The complaint is surely that they are not being chosen to be not paid.
That's what all reporting says. Payment is not automatic.
For now, the only users getting paid are ones who meet specific criteria. They must be a verified user — meaning, they pay for a blue check mark or have been gifted one — have 5 million impressions, or views, on posts in each of the last three months, and have a Stripe account linked to their Twitter account.
'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'
Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.
Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?
You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.
Yes. One shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, or incite violence against individuals.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA...
The bit is bold isn't the legal standard in the USA. You are allowed in the USA to incite violence against individuals. The exception comes when you are inciting it to a person who is able to carry out the act immediately.
If Batman calls for Lex Luthor to be killed, then that is legal in the US.
If Batman calls to Robin for Lex Luthor to be killed whilst Robin is standing next to Lex with a gun pointed at his head, then that is not legal in the US
You should be aware that Batman, Robin and Lex Luthor are not real people. Therefore I doubt the illegality of your second option.
My first thought was 'a bit odd to be wishing posthumous birthdays. And anyway, I thought her birthday was in April?'. My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
Yes. All queens are HM, whether reigning or consort.
Philip was only a prince and an HRH by creation - he wouldn't even have been either but for the letters patent creating him so. It's one of the sexist rules that while the female spouses of male royals (and aristocrats for that matter) get titles derived from the one that holds them, it doesn't work the other way round when the person with the title is female.
We wouldn't have this stupid nonsense if we were a Republic
Yes. One shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, or incite violence against individuals.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA...
The bit is bold isn't the legal standard in the USA. You are allowed in the USA to incite violence against individuals. The exception comes when you are inciting it to a person who is able to carry out the act immediately.
If Batman calls for Lex Luthor to be killed, then that is legal in the US.
If Batman calls to Robin for Lex Luthor to be killed whilst Robin is standing next to Lex with a gun pointed at his head, then that is not legal in the US
You should be aware that Batman, Robin and Lex Luthor are not real people. Therefore I doubt the illegality of your second option.
If the gun is real, cosplay is not (yet) a defence.
Plus every day matters. Which is also why we aren't going to see an early GE. Pain is at its most acute, mortgage rates spiking, inflation still harsh, strikes everywhere. Every week passing sees the possibility of some of these issues improving.
Or not.
Energy prices will fall from their peak but are likely to remain well above their pre-2022 for long enough for people to feel little benefit.
Inflation will fall and pay rises may turn net positive by autumn 2024 but even if they do, it'll be after a substantial real-terms cut; people won't be feeling better off.
Mortgage rates for those on fixed-term contracts will be rising hard for anyone renewing over the next 18 months, even if interest rates and mortgage rates peak in the interim. At all points, the market will be way above where it was 2 years earlier, never mind 5 years.
Strikes are mainly in the public sector and the unions know full-well that the political influence of strikes will increase as we head towards an election. Don't expect much drop-off unless Sunak/Hunt get the cheque-book out, which is unlikely.
The NHS backlog in appointments / operations will take a decade to recover from, even if it stops growing, which itself isn't all that likely, particularly if strikes continue. Maybe A&E waits will drop a bit but at best, people will become used to it being a bit rubbish and in the meantime, millions will experience its dysfunction.
The natural return of (some) ex-Con DKs to the Tories should reduce the polling gap but I'd expect that proportion of DKs returning to be a good deal lower than usual because (1) quite a few 2019 Cons were first-time voters for them then so it's not a natural home to return to, and (2) they'll see less imperitive to do so to keep Labour out than they did in 2019, and less positive reason to vote the Tories back in.
I think Kellner understates Labour's chances and isn't factoring in tactical voting sufficiently. Despite the scale of gains Labour needs, which is huge, I reckon it's at least a 70% shot they'll have a majority.
Wasn't it RP who said that many voters at his local polling station at the 2019 GE were first time voters, who had previously had little faith in politics but had voted for Brexit in 2016? The Tories can't rely on them to come to their rescue, as I suspect most of them won't bother voting next time around and those who do will likely vote for Reform.
Yes. One shouldn’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, or incite violence against individuals.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA...
The bit is bold isn't the legal standard in the USA. You are allowed in the USA to incite violence against individuals. The exception comes when you are inciting it to a person who is able to carry out the act immediately.
If Batman calls for Lex Luthor to be killed, then that is legal in the US.
If Batman calls to Robin for Lex Luthor to be killed whilst Robin is standing next to Lex with a gun pointed at his head, then that is not legal in the US
You should be aware that Batman, Robin and Lex Luthor are not real people. Therefore I doubt the illegality of your second option.
If the gun is real, cosplay is not (yet) a defence.
In fact the reverse is the case. In California you can take your homie down with a Glock, and release some rap about how you took your homie down with a Glock, and the rap is inadmissible, Artistic expression innit.
2. UTC - Because it would be crazy if your servers were set to use any other time. You're not going to have your servers change their time with daylight savings. Why would you want to deal with that hassle? Oh please don't tell me you've done that. Why do people do that?
Cos the CIO lives on the East Coast US...
All data should be in UTC
I remember an idiot manager screaming at the team - “What is the definition of today!?”
Starmer being eviscerated on Lewis Goodhall's phone in on LBC. Not much love for the Tories but utter hatred for Starmer from the left. A lot of criticism of the Blair Government too. Lots of ex Labour members planning to vote elsewhere much like BJO.
I am still on for a Rishi majority of circa 20 seats.
Starmer being eviscerated on Lewis Goodhall's phone in on LBC. Not much love for the Tories but utter hatred for Starmer from the left. A lot of criticism of the Blair Government too. Lots of ex Labour members planning to vote elsewhere much like BJO.
I am still on for a Rishi majority of circa 20 seats.
If you have money on that you will surely be in for a decent pay out? I can't see it tbh. The damage is done. The Tories have been in too long, are out of ideas and too many of the current bunch appear to be every bit as nasty as the previous 'nasty' party version.
'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'
Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.
Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?
You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.
This is the preeminent example of a resistible force meeting a movable object; SKS's not very goodness is obscured by Sunak's even worseness. It's like watching a cricket match between the world's worst 3rd XI cricket teams; any wickets runs etc are the product of mere chance, and the result is much harder to call, than a test match. No bet looks tempting to me.
Selby and Ainsty is the test for Labour. Win that and they're well on their way.
What would it say if Labour won Selby but didn’t win in Uxbridge?
A degree of Conservative strength in outer London I suppose. I'd be surprised if that happened mind, though they did hold Old Bexley? a while back comfortably.
Yes, around the same time they lost North Shropshire.
Against the LDs, the LD by election machine is like a Rolls Royce, the Labour by election machine more a second hand Ford
Oh dear, that’s two egregious errors today: “Rolls Royce” and “Rolls-Royces”… it’s Rolls-Royce, always a hyphen and never plural*
* beaten into me when working in Rolls-Royce PR department on my sandwich placement.
What kind of things did they have written on your board?
Very funny… I was going to say “Polytechnic business studies placement” but didn’t want to give @HYUFD a fit knowing that such people are allowed on PB
'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'
Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.
Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?
You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.
Wishful thinking.
Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
Starmer being eviscerated on Lewis Goodhall's phone in on LBC. Not much love for the Tories but utter hatred for Starmer from the left. A lot of criticism of the Blair Government too. Lots of ex Labour members planning to vote elsewhere much like BJO.
I am still on for a Rishi majority of circa 20 seats.
If Sir K were not getting massive flak from the left he would not be in a position to win the election. A Tory win is still possible, but only from the origin of Labour self combusting. The pro-Tory plurality has gone and won't come back for a bit. An 'anyone but Labour' plurality (2017) remains a possibility.
What is fascinating is that neither the left (tax, borrow and spend) nor the right (low tax, growth, small state) can assemble a programme and plan from where we are right now that makes any overall sense at all. The Overton window of what is possible is fantastically narrow at the moment.
Four new w/e polls from Spain. Two showing comfortable and slightly rising support for the PP in the 9% lead range. Two others also see slightly rising support for PP but in the 3/4% lead range. No idea which, if any, are right but it could be the difference between a comfy PP/Vox majority or no feasible majority for any group apart from the Grand Coalition. I think the latter is unlikely and that, on balance the Socialists are going to lose... assuming things remain as they are.
For thise interested barely any sign there is a GE in my area with very few posters - the Spanish don't put them in their houses - anywhere. Basically we're all on hollibobs here and the politics is very much a sideshow.
The most striking thing in the Wikipedia graph is the rise of the PSOE vote...?
'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'
Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.
Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?
You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.
This is the preeminent example of a resistible force meeting a movable object; SKS's not very goodness is obscured by Sunak's even worseness. It's like watching a cricket match between the world's worst 3rd XI cricket teams; any wickets runs etc are the product of mere chance, and the result is much harder to call, than a test match. No bet looks tempting to me.
This far out No Bet is the play if you don't fancy the jump. For me there's good news and bad news. The good news is I have made the jump, landed safely in 'Lab Maj Nailed On' territory and I'm happy here, like the people and the scenery. The bad (betting) news is I'm stuck with a terrible terrible short (of Lab Maj) that I did back in that Past which really is Another Country - 2020/21 before BoJo blew up. So my 1st betting move at this point has to be eat that loss and start again. Ah well. I'll still turn a profit, one way or another, if I'm right now. And I'm confident I am.
On topic: Curtice's conclusion is the hunch of an expert rather than analysis, but still to given some weight.
It's Kellner, not Curtice.
Also, in fairness he does offer analysis to back his position - it isn't pure hunch. Firstly, he notes that whilst the Conservatives are as unpopular as the lead up to 1997, Labour are not as popular as they were pre-1997. Secondly, he notes that polls that refer to "A Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak with Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor of the Exchequer" versus "A Labour government led by Keir Starmer with Rachel Reeves as Chancellor of the Exchequer" or similar are a fair bit closer. Thirdly, albeit slightly opaquely, he refers to the political map being unfavourable for Labour, which I think refers to the lead needed on UNS to get a majority.
I'd add to that the concept of reversion to the mean. Conservatives are polling so poorly that you'd probably bet on their next move being up a bit rather than down further.
The LE results were a clear suggestion to me that:
a) Sunak's latest form of Tory Statism isn't popular b) CCHQ still don't realise this
I'm personally looking forward to the left of the party getting smashed, so we can return to proper right of centre pro-growth Conservatism at the subsequent election.
The belief that “Sunak was too left wing” is what will see the Conservatives in opposition for a decade.
Historically we win when we're promoting small state, low tax platform.
Sunak seems to be promoting big state, high tax.
He is less popular than Boris Johnson (!) with people who voted Tory in 2019.
Just because the blob and the media tolerate him, doesn't make him a winner. He couldn't even beat Truss, remember, and has epically failed at the first electoral test. Worse than CCHQ expectations lowering!
Your first sentence is the bedrock on which Trussism was built. Not an option ATM.
It really scares me how so many of the non-private sector middle classes seem to think the state owes them.
I suspect a healthy dose of reality will be dealt to Britain in the coming decade. I suspect it will end up in a high tax, unemployment heavy incumbent Labour government losing to a low tax, live within our means neo-Thatcherite.
How do you think France has survived these past 50 years? Or Germany? Or The Netherlands? Or Sweden?
If you go to those countries they have their problems for sure but compared with the UK, France for example is hardly a failed state.
Given the riots this past month, I think you might have to revise that idea.
No, not really. I am looking at 50 years. Sure, France has had a rough few months but the country continues, basically a nice place to live, nicer than the UK in some respects, not quite as good in others. Pretty comparable overall despite not embracing small state, low-tax dogma.
My rule of thumb is that France is basically the same as Britain. Despite our ups and downs over the past several decades, and occasional terrorist outrages, our populations are about the same size, as are our economies.
'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'
Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.
Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?
You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.
An absolutely sane analysis - but what have you actually done, when reduced to basics? You have said that the polls as they now are are correct in saying Labour outright win is the only possibility. IMHO the value is in NOM - I put it as a 40% chance, the market at about 25%.
Kellner is actually predicting a shift from now to the GE; I happen to agree and my predictive range is almost the same as his.
Reasons? Intuition, guesswork, Reform won't score well, swingback, Labour can't do much better than now and Tories can't do much worse.
I hope that includes a commitment to phase out PPE at Oxford and the MA in Public Policy at Birkbeck. Given the vast amounts their graduates cost the nation they're definitely a rip off.
Looks like both male and female creative arts graduates see a net fall in lifetime earnings after tax and loans on that chart. As do male graduates in social care and agriculture (albeit many of the latter will go on and takeover the family farm so it makes practical sense for them).
Medicine and economics graduates see lifetime boosts to average earnings of a huge £300-£450k (PPE includes economics of course, indeed Rishi worked for Goldman Sachs initially rather than become a SPAD)
It is a mistake to mix up trade school courses like medicine with general (even liberal arts) courses like English, Classics or Geography. The whole thing is overshadowed by biased recruitment from Oxbridge and the like. The government (and the economy) would do better to eliminate this in favour of getting the best people into the right jobs.
So that's simultaneously China, West Coast USA, and Southern Europe.
Nothing to see here, move along.
It is overwhelmingly likely, as CO2 levels continue to rise as rapidly as ever despite the hype and cars running on water, that the disaster predicted is already baked in, though exactly what form it can take is unknowable. If the science is right, it cannot now be averted. Planning and mitigation, and looking for the benefits, if any can be the only way.
I reckon for the next GE, take the Tory score and add Reform on (Bar a rump 2.5%). Knock a couple of % off Labour and give it to the Lib Dems (Tactical considerations when people actually come to vote). That'd give ~ 44-30-13 as of now - Labour majority of 156.
Which illustrates how poor the Tory position is - even giving a bit of swingback, reformers "coming home" it's still an absolute monstering.
But congratulations on your obvious elevation to Conservative Party manifesto writer. Woke degrees- gone! IHT -going! What next? Secular government- going?
So that's simultaneously China, West Coast USA, and Southern Europe.
Nothing to see here, move along.
It is overwhelmingly likely, as CO2 levels continue to rise as rapidly as ever despite the hype and cars running on water, that the disaster predicted is already baked in, though exactly what form it can take is unknowable. If the science is right, it cannot now be averted. Planning and mitigation, and looking for the benefits, if any can be the only way.
You still see idiots posting about how it's just a heatwave, media have lost the plot etc. Records in 3 continents simultaneously is quite a thing.
'So: prediction time. I currently expect Labour to end up with 40-44 per cent of the vote, while the Tories win 31-35 per cent. If the result falls within those ranges, Labour will be the largest party, and has a 50-50 chance of securing an overall majority. However, these should be regarded like medium-term economic forecasts, subject to revision—and just as likely to be as wrong as the Bank of England’s recent inflation forecasts. Like economic forecasts, I shall be updating my predictions as the election draw near.'
Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.
Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?
You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.
An absolutely sane analysis - but what have you actually done, when reduced to basics? You have said that the polls as they now are are correct in saying Labour outright win is the only possibility. IMHO the value is in NOM - I put it as a 40% chance, the market at about 25%.
Kellner is actually predicting a shift from now to the GE; I happen to agree and my predictive range is almost the same as his.
Reasons? Intuition, guesswork, Reform won't score well, swingback, Labour can't do much better than now and Tories can't do much worse.
Well we need differing views to get a good market. Although I am factoring in the Tories doing better on GE day than they are now in the polls, just not that much better. And what I'm also expecting is some pretty potent tactical voting against them.
Some numbers (seeing as you have):
Big Lab: 20% Good Lab: 40% Slim Lab:20% Hung Lab: 15% Any other: 5%
But congratulations on your obvious elevation to Conservative Party manifesto writer. Woke degrees- gone! IHT -going! What next? Secular government- going?
I thought the Queen had died ?
Camilla will not be Queen in many peoples eyes but some, though a reducing number, will continue the rather quaint loyalty to royalty
And on IHT in my opinion it is kite flying and any tax cuts will be more targeted to the working population
I think these coming by elections should tell us more where the parties stand, real votes are better than 100 opinion polls. I fully expect the Lib dems to win fromerton, let's be honest, lib dems are good at winning by elections, if Labour win Selby that would be a real achievement, and would signal that the Tories are in real trouble, if Labour win Uxbridge but not Selby, there is a chance for the Tories,if the Tories hold Uxbridge and Selby, then I wouldn't be betting on a Labour majority
But congratulations on your obvious elevation to Conservative Party manifesto writer. Woke degrees- gone! IHT -going! What next? Secular government- going?
I thought the Queen had died ?
Camilla will not be Queen in many peoples eyes but some, though a reducing number, will continue the rather quaint loyalty to royalty
And on IHT in my opinion it is kite flying and any tax cuts will be more targeted to the working population
I do hope so re IHT. The discussion here the other day was most interesting - not least how the tax system pampers the rentier living off interest and dividends with a number of special allowances, and more so than I had realised, especially when one includes ISAs. Whereas the workers get a special negative allowance all to themselves, aka National Insyrance. And it's not as if one can lock any jobs into a tax free zone, unless of course one is a company director (to some extent).
Comments
To be much admired for overcoming his demons.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66221681
EDIT: Just looked up when he played his first. May 2003! Over 20 years as a test bowler. We will never see his like again.
Energy prices will fall from their peak but are likely to remain well above their pre-2022 for long enough for people to feel little benefit.
Inflation will fall and pay rises may turn net positive by autumn 2024 but even if they do, it'll be after a substantial real-terms cut; people won't be feeling better off.
Mortgage rates for those on fixed-term contracts will be rising hard for anyone renewing over the next 18 months, even if interest rates and mortgage rates peak in the interim. At all points, the market will be way above where it was 2 years earlier, never mind 5 years.
Strikes are mainly in the public sector and the unions know full-well that the political influence of strikes will increase as we head towards an election. Don't expect much drop-off unless Sunak/Hunt get the cheque-book out, which is unlikely.
The NHS backlog in appointments / operations will take a decade to recover from, even if it stops growing, which itself isn't all that likely, particularly if strikes continue. Maybe A&E waits will drop a bit but at best, people will become used to it being a bit rubbish and in the meantime, millions will experience its dysfunction.
The natural return of (some) ex-Con DKs to the Tories should reduce the polling gap but I'd expect that proportion of DKs returning to be a good deal lower than usual because (1) quite a few 2019 Cons were first-time voters for them then so it's not a natural home to return to, and (2) they'll see less imperitive to do so to keep Labour out than they did in 2019, and less positive reason to vote the Tories back in.
I think Kellner understates Labour's chances and isn't factoring in tactical voting sufficiently. Despite the scale of gains Labour needs, which is huge, I reckon it's at least a 70% shot they'll have a majority.
But yes, if they’re paying creators, then they should pay all creators irrespective of their political opinions, and regardless of whether or not other people agree with them. I agree with Musk, that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
https://www.cityam.com/uk-inflation-to-fall-to-lowest-level-since-march-2022-but-bank-of-england-still-tipped-to-hike-interest-rates/
"The rate of price growth in Britain is expected to have dropped to 8.2 per cent in June, down from 8.7 per cent in May, the City expects numbers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on Wednesday to unveil."
But core inflation unchanged.
Narrow Labour majority
Even if the chances of the defeat being worse are much greater than the chance of things improving, the current situation is so bad for the Tories that it makes sense to hold on for the small chance of the situation improving.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1680843768906371077?s=20
If your watches have a second hands there3 watches will show all show different times.
I have always thoiught that this is a clear application where the mean is probably the wrong answer. A much better approach is to decide which watch is most likely to be accurate and go with that. I'd certainly do this for 2 and usually 3 watches/clocks too.
That’s pretty much the legal standard in the USA. Anything else leads to questions about who sets the standards, starts down a long and slippery slope that ends up with problems like bank accounts being closed arbitrarily.
This appears to be consistent with the Lord Ashcroft focus group feedback
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/07/a-tale-of-three-by-elections-my-focus-groups-in-somerton-selby-and-uxbridge/
Positive for Lib Dems in Somerton and Frome more balanced in the others.
The obstacles to this are threefold:
No-one has a coherent route, capable of being elected, which gets from here to there.
There is no area of state managed expenditure which is not under pressure to increase by a lot. Try: welfare, pensions, NHS, debt management, education, defence, law and order. Try cutting £200 billion out of those and see how far you get.
After 13 years of centre right government we are still borrowing over £100bn a year at high rates.
So the question is: With figures and a plan what does a traditional right of centre Tory government do? Answers on a postcard to 10 and 11 Downing Street, because currently they have no idea. If they had they would win the next election so its urgent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/17/starmer-could-soon-reap-what-ulez-has-sowed/
He thinks that the Tories haven’t gone hard enough on ULEZ in Uxbridge.
My second, upon realising who HYUFD was talking about was 'is she a majesty? I thought she was a Royal Highness? Was Prince Philip a majesty?' I have nothing against the woman, but I wouldn't describe her as 'majestic'.
I think that we will get a high protest vote for others, particularly Green.
This would be consistent with the locals and in line with a safety first approach from Labour.
I think that Nick is in the right ball park with his numbers although Labour may go below 40 if they stay boring (cf the relative interviews by Starmer and Blair yesterday). I agree that that Conservatives will struggle to go above 30.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/13/woman-arrested-london-trans-pride-tells-punch-terfs-in-face/
Then that it was the wrong date.
I imagine every public singer of the national anthem is still worried about singing “Queen” instead of “King”.
Right, work to do!
The time-telling function of a seconds hand on a watch is secondary anyway, because who needs to know the time to better than a minute? It's really there to confirm that the watch is running and one can therefore have some faith in the hour and minute info. This is expressly stated in the official spec for dive watches (which are however obsolete even by wind up watch standards, because who dives without a computer these days?)
Here's another, by Sal the Agorist: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1672740779947618304?s=20
Do you believe freedom of speech means that a private company should choose to give money to someone promoting anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories? Not that Musk really believes in freedom of speech given how much he likes to silence views he doesn't like: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-not-encouraging.html
- "I beg your pardon?"
- "Evil old woman, considered frightful or ugly. It's twelve down."
- "Oh! Bless you."
The laws also differ in virtually every country in the world, and Twitter operates in a large number of countries.
See the problem?
And it's a problem that is exacerbated by Musk only being interested in 'free speech' for himself and his acolytes.
Even the LGBTblablabla activists calling for porn in primary schools and child genital mutilation. That’s what freedom of speech means.
Right, work to do.
For now, though, they are not. They are being selected by management fiat - including the guy charged with rape.
We're not talking about being "excluded from the Debate' - rather about being chosen to be paid.
Free speech means that people with non-illegal views are allowed to freely express them. Free speech does not mean Twitter promotes their views and pays them to say more.
Payment is not automatic.
Twitter is a private company. They can set up their revenue sharing programme however they want. They have chosen this outcome. YouTube, for example, choose to de-monetise videos promoting anti-vax and hate speech.
Philip was only a prince and an HRH by creation - he wouldn't even have been either but for the letters patent creating him so. It's one of the sexist rules that while the female spouses of male royals (and aristocrats for that matter) get titles derived from the one that holds them, it doesn't work the other way round when the person with the title is female.
For now, the only users getting paid are ones who meet specific criteria. They must be a verified user — meaning, they pay for a blue check mark or have been gifted one — have 5 million impressions, or views, on posts in each of the last three months, and have a Stripe account linked to their Twitter account.
China just experienced its highest temperature in recorded history, topping out at an unbelievable 52.2°C (126°F).
This crushes the country's previous all-time high by 1.7°C (3°F).
https://twitter.com/US_Stormwatch/status/1680641218131398658
Although maybe, given the training data, that invariably gives you the wrong 'queen'.
Mr. B, 52.2C sounds horrendous. I hope the humidity was low.
There was a heatwave when I was in China, up to 40C.
Four new w/e polls from Spain. Two showing comfortable and slightly rising support for the PP in the 9% lead range. Two others also see slightly rising support for PP but in the 3/4% lead range. No idea which, if any, are right but it could be the difference between a comfy PP/Vox majority or no feasible majority for any group apart from the Grand Coalition. I think the latter is unlikely and that, on balance the Socialists are going to lose... assuming things remain as they are.
For thise interested barely any sign there is a GE in my area with very few posters - the Spanish don't put them in their houses - anywhere. Basically we're all on hollibobs here and the politics is very much a sideshow.
Swing back has been the cry throughout when Labour were 5 points up, 10 points up, 15 points up, 20 points up, 30 points up, to which I've been responding, yes, but from where?
Well, Sunak's honeymoon has now wound down after the May elections, and the three by-elections are going to be the next scene setters of the political landscape - Sunak the fighter or Starmer PM in waiting and that will shift the dial a couple of points.
The former will set the clock ticking on swing back, the latter cement Starmer as PM in waiting, and bring us into the "what will Labour do" phase. The boost will mean no swing back for a month or two and Labour starting a few points better, but that phase is still coming quite soon.
In any case, let the dust settle, and it will be time to call swing back.
https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/creator-ads-revenue-sharing
Creator Ads Revenue Sharing will be available in all the countries where Stripe supports payouts. We are rolling out to an initial group who will be invited to accept payment.
Whether it's the great Kellner or somebody on here I'm never that bowled over by the above sort of thing. It's not a prediction at all. It's an artful way of discussing the election in a way that sounds authoritative and carries almost no risk of being wrong. You just keep updating your 'prediction' in line with the polls, caveated with the relevant error margins, and end up where almost everyone else is, never having gone anywhere exciting on the route there.
Not the way. Not for punditry and definitely not for betting. The way is to decide which of 2 camps you're in. Is this a sweeping change election where the Tories get their asses handed to them by the voters and the only question is the size of the Labour majority? Or is it a more workmanlike affair where the new boundaries, swingback, traditional distrust of Labour on the economy, lack of enthusiasm for them ('Starmer no Blair'), shy tories, tory campaigning prowess plus their media attack dogs, etc etc, where these factors combine to limit the Labour win to something wafer thin or to largest party in a hung parliament?
You have to jump one way or the other and you have to do this now (and be right obviously!) in order to secure big betting value. I've done this fwiw. I've jumped and where I've landed is slap bang in the 1st camp. Clear Labour win. Outright majority nailed on. More chance of a landslide than of a hung parliament.
Therefore I doubt the illegality of your second option.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I remember an idiot manager screaming at the team - “What is the definition of today!?”
I am still on for a Rishi majority of circa 20 seats.
Starmer had a mare this weekend. If he can't think on his feet during a campaign he will shed the lead Theresa May style. The Conservatives' LauraK owned him yesterday. Blair was much better with Sophie Ridge.
What is fascinating is that neither the left (tax, borrow and spend) nor the right (low tax, growth, small state) can assemble a programme and plan from where we are right now that makes any overall sense at all. The Overton window of what is possible is fantastically narrow at the moment.
Also, in fairness he does offer analysis to back his position - it isn't pure hunch. Firstly, he notes that whilst the Conservatives are as unpopular as the lead up to 1997, Labour are not as popular as they were pre-1997. Secondly, he notes that polls that refer to "A Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak with Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor of the Exchequer" versus "A Labour government led by Keir Starmer with Rachel Reeves as Chancellor of the Exchequer" or similar are a fair bit closer. Thirdly, albeit slightly opaquely, he refers to the political map being unfavourable for Labour, which I think refers to the lead needed on UNS to get a majority.
I'd add to that the concept of reversion to the mean. Conservatives are polling so poorly that you'd probably bet on their next move being up a bit rather than down further.
Kellner is actually predicting a shift from now to the GE; I happen to agree and my predictive range is almost the same as his.
Reasons? Intuition, guesswork, Reform won't score well, swingback, Labour can't do much better than now and Tories can't do much worse.
That'd give ~ 44-30-13 as of now - Labour majority of 156.
Which illustrates how poor the Tory position is - even giving a bit of swingback, reformers "coming home" it's still an absolute monstering.
But congratulations on your obvious elevation to Conservative Party manifesto writer. Woke degrees- gone! IHT -going! What next? Secular government- going?
Some numbers (seeing as you have):
Big Lab: 20%
Good Lab: 40%
Slim Lab:20%
Hung Lab: 15%
Any other: 5%
Camilla will not be Queen in many peoples eyes but some, though a reducing number, will continue the rather quaint loyalty to royalty
And on IHT in my opinion it is kite flying and any tax cuts will be more targeted to the working population