Well offtopic, but this is going to be ‘fun’. A very much Soviet-era overnight sleeper train from Kiev to Lviv.
On one hand it was £7 per person, first class, based on two sharing a private cabin. On the other hand there’s no aircon, and only one toilet between a couple of hundred of us for the next 15 hours!
May I be the first to say the instinct of the system, will be to turn regulation of mangers into a stick to beat the non-compliant with. Just as with complaints about doctors to the GMC.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
Though university seats are tending more Labour than Lib Dem these days (Cambridge, Portsmouth S etc). I suspect that cities with cathedrals but not really universities (Winchester, whatever Ely is calling itself this time) are a better steer for Lib Dem target seats now.
It would be interesting to know where the parties see themselves targetting. Presumably that ought to be becoming clearer from weight of thinly-disguised campaign literature. A heatmap of people buying larger recycling bins?
A more precise metric would be pet shop sales of budgie and parrot cage linings, or reduction thereof.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
Very interesting. I|'ve been saying for a while that while Tory defeat is almost certain, the scale of it could be down to the ability of the LibDems to find the resources - partly money, but mostly personnel - for the number of potential targets they have.
May I be the first to say the instinct of the system, will be to turn regulation of mangers into a stick to beat the non-compliant with. Just as with complaints about doctors to the GMC.
I’ll agree with you, that the chance of any of the senior managers encountering a genuinely career-ending event, will be slim to none.
Well offtopic, but this is going to be ‘fun’. A very much Soviet-era overnight sleeper train from Kiev to Lviv.
On one hand it was £7 per person, first class, based on two sharing a private cabin. On the other hand there’s no aircon, and only one toilet between a couple of hundred of us for the next 15 hours!
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
The fun bit was in Tucker’s contract with Fox, which says he’s not allowed to work for any other network, that Youtube and Rumble accounts also belong to the network - but that his Twitter account is his own.
Fox never thought that Twitter would become a place for long-form video, and Carlson and Musk are taking advantage.
Carlson and Musk are indeed taking advantage . . . of every opportunity for demonstrating that they've got their tongues, minds and (what passes for) souls firmly wedged between Trump's ass-cheeks.
For present fun and (they hope) future profit.
Although some of the behind-the-scenes conversations from within Fox that have come out show that Carlson really doesn't like Trump. But for both of them the main driver is how they can use the other to further their own aims.
Tony Blair doesn't resign and leads the Labour Party into the 2010 election.
What is the result?
Civil war in the Labour Party, a split party loses power for a generation. Blair not resigning was impossible at the time. I think he thought he would willingly hand over power to Brown in the second term, but the aphrodisiac of power was too strong. Either that or he just played Brown all along, and never intended to step aside.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
Though university seats are tending more Labour than Lib Dem these days (Cambridge, Portsmouth S etc). I suspect that cities with cathedrals but not really universities (Winchester, whatever Ely is calling itself this time) are a better steer for Lib Dem target seats now.
It would be interesting to know where the parties see themselves targetting. Presumably that ought to be becoming clearer from weight of thinly-disguised campaign literature. A heatmap of people buying larger recycling bins?
A more precise metric would be pet shop sales of budgie and parrot cage linings, or reduction thereof.
Norwegian Blue Parrots?
No use as a metric. Zero need for lining.
You’re not thinking like a proper ‘crat.
You could start a whole department of Decorative Avian Pet Enclosure Infrastructure, spend £37 billion a year, get a peerage etc.
That all the parrots died is a minor detail - and there’s always an enquiry to cover that up.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
Because Genghis Khan and Tamerlane were well-known for their memos.
Bureaucracy is value-neutral. Indeed, it's efficiency-neutral - you can have effective bureaucracies and hopeless ones.
But on the main point, while an efficient bureaucracy will make evil intent more effective - see the Nazis and the NKVD for obvious example - an efficient bureaucracy will also make a benevolent state more effective too, with justice administered, services delivered responsively and a leadership in touch with the people.
Presumably the original quote re 'the bureaucratic mind' is one that simply processes; where the process is an end in itself; where it is stripped of humanity and judgement and where people and their refusal to conform with systems and policies (or even predictions) get in the way of 'delivering outcomes'. Certainly, evil can make great use of such mindsets but I disagree with the inference that that's the essence of bureaucracy.
Though spiked saying that anyone telling them what to do is inherently evil isn't that surprising.
There is a kind of evil that is facilitated by bureaucracy, and in some ways it's worse than evil driven by passion or need. It's why the film Conspiracy was so chilling.
The Aberfan disaster aftermath was fascinating in the way that those running the NCB behaved exactly as the old mine owners would have done.
Despite being explicitly drawn from the miners unions and their political representatives and being supposed to act in the interests of the miners and their families.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Tony Blair doesn't resign and leads the Labour Party into the 2010 election.
What is the result?
Civil war in the Labour Party, a split party loses power for a generation. Blair not resigning was impossible at the time. I think he thought he would willingly hand over power to Brown in the second term, but the aphrodisiac of power was too strong. Either that or he just played Brown all along, and never intended to step aside.
He should have been more ruthless and moved Brown out of the Treasury after his first term.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
Because Genghis Khan and Tamerlane were well-known for their memos.
Bureaucracy is value-neutral. Indeed, it's efficiency-neutral - you can have effective bureaucracies and hopeless ones.
But on the main point, while an efficient bureaucracy will make evil intent more effective - see the Nazis and the NKVD for obvious example - an efficient bureaucracy will also make a benevolent state more effective too, with justice administered, services delivered responsively and a leadership in touch with the people.
Presumably the original quote re 'the bureaucratic mind' is one that simply processes; where the process is an end in itself; where it is stripped of humanity and judgement and where people and their refusal to conform with systems and policies (or even predictions) get in the way of 'delivering outcomes'. Certainly, evil can make great use of such mindsets but I disagree with the inference that that's the essence of bureaucracy.
I don't think I agree with this. I don't know about the NKVD, but the Nazi's bureaucracy was famously inefficient, with many rival organisations with overlapping responsibilities. However, this was a secret of its effectiveness, because rival agencies sought to outdo each other.
Well, we can argue about the interaction of efficiency vs effectiveness, or of the efficiencies of individual agencies vs the system overall (or indeed about whether that was a political vs bureaucracy question) but in terms of knowing what was what and where, and - once the politics was decided - what to do and when, and then doing it, I'd argue the Nazi state functioned tragically efficiently.
The pile of competing bureaucracies in the Nazi and Soviet states certainly seemed to operate on the basis of bureaucracy for its own sake.
The Nazis explicitly modelled their system on Social Darwinism and Working Towards The Leader. The accounts of the infighting in the Soviet space program is also worth looking at.
Here's a thought. Maybe an effective bureaucracy can't be an efficient one, in that it *needs* internal competition and the fear of failure in order to work? You can't have a person or unit or division acting as institutional blockers because you go round them and they find themselves redundant. But internal competition inevitably means duplication and overheads.
I think that's broadly correct. It is a feature of all bureaucracies (certainly all that I can think of) that they are funded (and therefore motivated) indirectly, not by the users of their service. That is an inherent flaw that leads to a whole set of undesirable behaviours by the bureaucrats. If your funding comes from above, it behoves you to behave like you need more of it to do your job. I am not sure it leads to evil, but it is certainly often very counter-productive. Creating internal competition as the Nazis did is (whether by accident or design) a way of overcoming what seems an inevitable progression otherwise.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.
Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?
I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
Tony Blair doesn't resign and leads the Labour Party into the 2010 election.
What is the result?
Civil war in the Labour Party, a split party loses power for a generation. Blair not resigning was impossible at the time. I think he thought he would willingly hand over power to Brown in the second term, but the aphrodisiac of power was too strong. Either that or he just played Brown all along, and never intended to step aside.
He should have been more ruthless and moved Brown out of the Treasury after his first term.
He'd gone 're-order this world around us' by that point. The UKT was a pimple.
The former environment secretary George Eustice has been told to ask permission from the post-government jobs watchdog every time his new consultancy firm takes on a client to avoid giving them unfair access to his former department.
The senior Conservative MP, who is standing down at the next election, was given permission by the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba) to set up a company to advise businesses on farming technology and the water sector.
However, the watchdog said there was a “significant risk” that clients could “be considered to gain” from his insight of government and “inherent risks” that the former minister could give them “unfair access” to government.
Tony Blair doesn't resign and leads the Labour Party into the 2010 election.
What is the result?
Civil war in the Labour Party, a split party loses power for a generation. Blair not resigning was impossible at the time. I think he thought he would willingly hand over power to Brown in the second term, but the aphrodisiac of power was too strong. Either that or he just played Brown all along, and never intended to step aside.
Hang on a sec - what is the point of departure on this alt history scenario? How about the Granita meeting where Gordon Brown makes it clear to Tony Blair that he has no real interest in the leadership and instead wants the entire focus of government to be external - "Lets transform this country so that its fit for the future" he tells Tony.
The cracks in the party really started to show after Iraq. Blair was seen as being in the way by Brownites and increasingly as a liability. But in this scenario there isn't an impatient jostling for position. The War Against Terror has been an unexpected diversion, but diversion it is from their ongoing mission to remake Britain.
So I would expect the 2005 result not to be as strong as it was for the LDs. Perhaps a majority of 80-100, with an ongoing programme and no change in the duopoly at the top, a political ying and yang rather than embittered infighting.
We would likely still see a 2010 election to allow to fix the horrors of the GFC, but Blair would absolutely win again, this time with a majority cut to at least 66 or maybe closer to Thatcher in 1979. We already saw the prime timeline Osborne pledged to inflate the growth bubble even faster - match every pound of Labour investment plus additional growth to pay for tax cuts on top. In this alternate timeline what do Cameron and Osbrown have to offer?
The tragedy of that era truly was the Blair Brown spat. Because of it that government did so much to fiddle around the edges of the structural problems in the economy without having the political will to do anything substantial about them.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
Again, you seem to be assuming all the cases are similar in evidential terms. Very obviously - given the jury was unable to reach a guilty verdict on some of the charges - they were not.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Yes, you'd rather let alleged drug traffickers and money launderers evade justice than admit you may have screwed things up.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Yes, you'd rather let alleged drug traffickers and money launderers evade justice than admit you may have screwed things up.
I'd advise you not to make this a key pillar of the rejoin campaign.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Yes, you'd rather let alleged drug traffickers and money launderers evade justice than admit you may have screwed things up.
But like Ronnie Biggs, not being able to set foot in fair England again is surely punishment enough.
The median wage is *completely unchanged* in real terms since May 2010. There was a ~ 14.4% real terms rise in the 2000s.
** Up 0.05% relative to CPI, down 0.9% relative to CPIH. **
It confirms *Shock horror* houses hit 8* multiple of wages by March 2004. (4.93 in Jan 2000)
Since then they've been in a corridor of 6.9 to 9.2 - currently @ 8.2.
With interest rates now triple what we'd grown used to, house prices will continue to fall for a while yet imo.
If inflation and wages carry on going up it could be a soft landing. I think perhaps counterintuitively REALLY getting a grip on inflation is probably the biggest danger to the housing market. Another % increase by Bailey will be COLLAPSO territory.
The former environment secretary George Eustice has been told to ask permission from the post-government jobs watchdog every time his new consultancy firm takes on a client to avoid giving them unfair access to his former department.
The senior Conservative MP, who is standing down at the next election, was given permission by the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba) to set up a company to advise businesses on farming technology and the water sector.
However, the watchdog said there was a “significant risk” that clients could “be considered to gain” from his insight of government and “inherent risks” that the former minister could give them “unfair access” to government.
Zero real terms wage growth over 13 years. Has any Gov't managed that particular feat before ?
The irony of 2016.
The rubbish wage growth in the runup to the referendum was a cause of the result tipping the way it did. The fallout of the referendum was then a cause of the ongoing rubbish wage growth.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
If I wanted to be unkind I'd say that you are missing the point so much that you'd probably miss the floor were you to fall out of bed.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Yes, you'd rather let alleged drug traffickers and money launderers evade justice than admit you may have screwed things up.
I'd advise you not to make this a key pillar of the rejoin campaign.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
If I wanted to be unkind I'd say that you are missing the point so much that you'd probably miss the floor were you to fall out of bed.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
If I wanted to be unkind I'd say that you are missing the point so much that you'd probably miss the floor were you to fall out of bed.
You're welcome to say it, I relish a good put down. You're probably right.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Yes, you'd rather let alleged drug traffickers and money launderers evade justice than admit you may have screwed things up.
I'd advise you not to make this a key pillar of the rejoin campaign.
Don't worry we've got a hundred other things to act as key pillars of the campaign.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
Zero real terms wage growth over 13 years. Has any Gov't managed that particular feat before ?
The irony of 2016.
The rubbish wage growth in the runup to the referendum was a cause of the result tipping the way it did. The fallout of the referendum was then a cause of the ongoing rubbish wage growth.
Wages the same in real terms when Cameron was elected, when we voted for Brexit and now.
Date / CPI rebased Jan 2000 / CPIH rebased Jan 2000 May 2010 335 339 Jun 2016 332 335 Jun 2023 335 338
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Judges don't like getting stuff like this, though:
"The German court was not impressed by the reply it received from the UK, which eventually arrived from a police station in Manchester on the last day of the deadline set by the court. The e-mail contained no guarantees, but indicated that the UK was planning to create 20,000 new prison places to overcome overcrowding (which seems rather to concede the point made by the defence lawyer in the first place). There was no specific information on the planned place of detention, but only an indication that the first prison would probably be in the London area."
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
Some suggestions above might actually help a crap merchaniser move their crap merchandise. - in the UK.
However IF you're going for bilking aspirational twits on a global scale, stick with the double-barrel monikers.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
[applause]
Upscale places (which is where it's at for the Lib Dems these days) have upscale names.
In the recent boundary review, there were complaints from some residents about being moved from Hornchurch and Upminster (mildly eccentric gentlemen's socks) to Romford (enough said) because of the possible effect on the value of their houses.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
Because Genghis Khan and Tamerlane were well-known for their memos.
Bureaucracy is value-neutral. Indeed, it's efficiency-neutral - you can have effective bureaucracies and hopeless ones.
But on the main point, while an efficient bureaucracy will make evil intent more effective - see the Nazis and the NKVD for obvious example - an efficient bureaucracy will also make a benevolent state more effective too, with justice administered, services delivered responsively and a leadership in touch with the people.
Presumably the original quote re 'the bureaucratic mind' is one that simply processes; where the process is an end in itself; where it is stripped of humanity and judgement and where people and their refusal to conform with systems and policies (or even predictions) get in the way of 'delivering outcomes'. Certainly, evil can make great use of such mindsets but I disagree with the inference that that's the essence of bureaucracy.
Though spiked saying that anyone telling them what to do is inherently evil isn't that surprising.
There is a kind of evil that is facilitated by bureaucracy, and in some ways it's worse than evil driven by passion or need. It's why the film Conspiracy was so chilling.
The Aberfan disaster aftermath was fascinating in the way that those running the NCB behaved exactly as the old mine owners would have done.
Despite being explicitly drawn from the miners unions and their political representatives and being supposed to act in the interests of the miners and their families.
This passage is relevant to the Letby case and what we were discussing earlier about bureaucracies -
"It feels like indifference to those on the receiving end. But perhaps its impulse is less the effect on the victims but more a desire to save face by those responsible. The truth about what happened was important to the families. It mattered that this was publicly acknowledged. But this public acknowledgement is something the authorities find hard to accept or admit. (The paradox is that the later it is said the more victims will want something else — compensation or prosecutions — as a substitute.) It is not just concerns about having to pay compensation which drives this, important as it is. It harms an institution’s self-image and, often, of senior people within it. “We got it wrong.” is hard to say. If “we get it wrong” what sort of a “we” are we, really? Avoiding the shame of having to admit that your actions or inactions have been responsible for the suffering of others is what drives this defensiveness and indifference."
Zero real terms wage growth over 13 years. Has any Gov't managed that particular feat before ?
The irony of 2016.
The rubbish wage growth in the runup to the referendum was a cause of the result tipping the way it did. The fallout of the referendum was then a cause of the ongoing rubbish wage growth.
Rubbish wage growth in the runup was because any money or productivity worked for to the state in taxes, instead of paying for wage growth, was paying down Brown's deficit. Its easy to pay for public sector wage growth if you're not funding it from taxes, but from borrowing but when it comes time to that borrowing to be paid down, then your wages of today are coming from what should have been future wages.
Pre-Covid, the UK's wages per house may not have been different to 2010, but the deficit absolutely was.
Post 2016, nothing in 2016 has restricted wage growth either. The UK has continued with its existing productivity and growth issues. If anything, wages at the bottom of the market are now rising faster than pre-2016 since employers can no longer just import people for minimum wage.
Zero real terms wage growth over 13 years. Has any Gov't managed that particular feat before ?
The irony of 2016.
The rubbish wage growth in the runup to the referendum was a cause of the result tipping the way it did. The fallout of the referendum was then a cause of the ongoing rubbish wage growth.
Wages the same in real terms when Cameron was elected, when we voted for Brexit and now.
Date / CPI rebased Jan 2000 / CPIH rebased Jan 2000 May 2010 335 339 Jun 2016 332 335 Jun 2023 335 338
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.
Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?
I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
A whole life sentence was inevitable. The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence. I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
I think there will be a larger than usual number of surprises at the next election, i.e. seats that go against UNS. A few unlikely Lib Dem wins in deep rural counties, possibly one or two from third place. A number of surprise Labour wins in supposedly solid Tory seats on or near the South coast. And several surprise Tory holds in taxi-driver / white van outer suburbs of the fairly prosperous but self-made sort.
The Brexity bits of the suburban South East might be the big hold out. Rich enough to be doing OK under this government, patriotic and anti-woke, lots of retired, not disillusioned by the promises of levelling up, but far enough from the channel not to be annoyed by post-Brexit transport disruption.
Zero real terms wage growth over 13 years. Has any Gov't managed that particular feat before ?
The irony of 2016.
The rubbish wage growth in the runup to the referendum was a cause of the result tipping the way it did. The fallout of the referendum was then a cause of the ongoing rubbish wage growth.
Wages the same in real terms when Cameron was elected, when we voted for Brexit and now.
Date / CPI rebased Jan 2000 / CPIH rebased Jan 2000 May 2010 335 339 Jun 2016 332 335 Jun 2023 335 338
But a far higher proportion of the working age population is in work, in 2023 than in 2010. So, real median household income is 11% higher in 2023 than in 2010.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.
Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?
I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
A whole life sentence was inevitable. The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence. I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
There are only a handful of people on whole life orders. Changing those to life sentences would have an absolutely negligible effect on the prison system.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
Judges don't like getting stuff like this, though:
"The German court was not impressed by the reply it received from the UK, which eventually arrived from a police station in Manchester on the last day of the deadline set by the court. The e-mail contained no guarantees, but indicated that the UK was planning to create 20,000 new prison places to overcome overcrowding (which seems rather to concede the point made by the defence lawyer in the first place). There was no specific information on the planned place of detention, but only an indication that the first prison would probably be in the London area."
Judges do expect people to give them a proper reply to their questions.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.
Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?
I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
A whole life sentence was inevitable. The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence. I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
Some people are too dangerous to let back into society.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
The Liberal/Alliance almost won Newcastle-under-Lyme in a by-election in 1986. Labour held the seat by just 799 votes.
Tony Blair doesn't resign and leads the Labour Party into the 2010 election.
What is the result?
Civil war in the Labour Party, a split party loses power for a generation. Blair not resigning was impossible at the time. I think he thought he would willingly hand over power to Brown in the second term, but the aphrodisiac of power was too strong. Either that or he just played Brown all along, and never intended to step aside.
Hang on a sec - what is the point of departure on this alt history scenario? How about the Granita meeting where Gordon Brown makes it clear to Tony Blair that he has no real interest in the leadership and instead wants the entire focus of government to be external - "Lets transform this country so that its fit for the future" he tells Tony.
The cracks in the party really started to show after Iraq. Blair was seen as being in the way by Brownites and increasingly as a liability. But in this scenario there isn't an impatient jostling for position. The War Against Terror has been an unexpected diversion, but diversion it is from their ongoing mission to remake Britain.
So I would expect the 2005 result not to be as strong as it was for the LDs. Perhaps a majority of 80-100, with an ongoing programme and no change in the duopoly at the top, a political ying and yang rather than embittered infighting.
We would likely still see a 2010 election to allow to fix the horrors of the GFC, but Blair would absolutely win again, this time with a majority cut to at least 66 or maybe closer to Thatcher in 1979. We already saw the prime timeline Osborne pledged to inflate the growth bubble even faster - match every pound of Labour investment plus additional growth to pay for tax cuts on top. In this alternate timeline what do Cameron and Osbrown have to offer?
The tragedy of that era truly was the Blair Brown spat. Because of it that government did so much to fiddle around the edges of the structural problems in the economy without having the political will to do anything substantial about them.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
[applause]
Upscale places (which is where it's at for the Lib Dems these days) have upscale names.
In the recent boundary review, there were complaints from some residents about being moved from Hornchurch and Upminster (mildly eccentric gentlemen's socks) to Romford (enough said) because of the possible effect on the value of their houses.
I was gazing down the list of constituencies to find the roughest sounding. Romford is obviously one. Boston and Skegness another. Could Romford be a classy brand? Perhaps yes: expensive cycling gears. "I've invested in Romfords - much smoother than the old Shimanos and I find they rarely slip".
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
[applause]
Upscale places (which is where it's at for the Lib Dems these days) have upscale names.
In the recent boundary review, there were complaints from some residents about being moved from Hornchurch and Upminster (mildly eccentric gentlemen's socks) to Romford (enough said) because of the possible effect on the value of their houses.
I was gazing down the list of constituencies to find the roughest sounding. Romford is obviously one. Boston and Skegness another. Could Romford be a classy brand? Perhaps yes: expensive cycling gears. "I've invested in Romfords - much smoother than the old Shimanos and I find they rarely slip".
gears
Thou has't summoned the demons from the deeps, foolish mortal....
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
Because Genghis Khan and Tamerlane were well-known for their memos.
Bureaucracy is value-neutral. Indeed, it's efficiency-neutral - you can have effective bureaucracies and hopeless ones.
But on the main point, while an efficient bureaucracy will make evil intent more effective - see the Nazis and the NKVD for obvious example - an efficient bureaucracy will also make a benevolent state more effective too, with justice administered, services delivered responsively and a leadership in touch with the people.
Presumably the original quote re 'the bureaucratic mind' is one that simply processes; where the process is an end in itself; where it is stripped of humanity and judgement and where people and their refusal to conform with systems and policies (or even predictions) get in the way of 'delivering outcomes'. Certainly, evil can make great use of such mindsets but I disagree with the inference that that's the essence of bureaucracy.
Though spiked saying that anyone telling them what to do is inherently evil isn't that surprising.
There is a kind of evil that is facilitated by bureaucracy, and in some ways it's worse than evil driven by passion or need. It's why the film Conspiracy was so chilling.
The Aberfan disaster aftermath was fascinating in the way that those running the NCB behaved exactly as the old mine owners would have done.
Despite being explicitly drawn from the miners unions and their political representatives and being supposed to act in the interests of the miners and their families.
This passage is relevant to the Letby case and what we were discussing earlier about bureaucracies -
"It feels like indifference to those on the receiving end. But perhaps its impulse is less the effect on the victims but more a desire to save face by those responsible. The truth about what happened was important to the families. It mattered that this was publicly acknowledged. But this public acknowledgement is something the authorities find hard to accept or admit. (The paradox is that the later it is said the more victims will want something else — compensation or prosecutions — as a substitute.) It is not just concerns about having to pay compensation which drives this, important as it is. It harms an institution’s self-image and, often, of senior people within it. “We got it wrong.” is hard to say. If “we get it wrong” what sort of a “we” are we, really? Avoiding the shame of having to admit that your actions or inactions have been responsible for the suffering of others is what drives this defensiveness and indifference."
Self preservation - a key motivating factor in all bureaucracies. And in life, but for most, self-preservation comes from selling a product or service that others want to buy.
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
The fun bit was in Tucker’s contract with Fox, which says he’s not allowed to work for any other network, that Youtube and Rumble accounts also belong to the network - but that his Twitter account is his own.
Fox never thought that Twitter would become a place for long-form video, and Carlson and Musk are taking advantage.
Aren’t Fox suing Carlson on the basis that this still counts and he’s in violation?
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.
Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?
I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
A whole life sentence was inevitable. The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence. I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
Some people are too dangerous to let back into society.
Relating to this case, one hopes that Letby acted totally alone. There is sadly precedent for being egged on by others, whether via correspondence or in person.
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
The fun bit was in Tucker’s contract with Fox, which says he’s not allowed to work for any other network, that Youtube and Rumble accounts also belong to the network - but that his Twitter account is his own.
Fox never thought that Twitter would become a place for long-form video, and Carlson and Musk are taking advantage.
Aren’t Fox suing Carlson on the basis that this still counts and he’s in violation?
World popcorn prices up another 10% on that news, having risen 85% in the previous 36 hours anyway.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
Based on my Facebook feed, at least three of them need to be brands selling pants, or shaving equipment for the bits that go in pants.
Evil has a ‘natural affinity with the bureaucratic mind’, wrote Eagleton. ‘Flaws, loose ends and rough approximations are what evil cannot endure’, he wrote. ‘Goodness, by contrast, is in love with the dappled, unfinished nature of things.’ This, I believe, is what we saw in Chester: an association, however unwitting, however regretted, between the bureaucratic mind and the evil mind, with goodness silenced.
I suspect I will be saying this again and again, but this is your perennial reminder that the alert was raised successfully, not by managers, but by an epidemiological unit based in Oxford. This one[1]. It is people such as they, and not fucking [redacteds] trust fund [redacteds] like "Spiked" who will solve this problem, and they get paid a shit-ton less. Bureaucratic mind my fucking arse.
The comment I would make on this situation is that the decision of the jury could well have gone the other way (they were deliberating for a hundred hours?) in which case the situation would now look completely different, there would be different heroes and villains in the news stories that follow.
Could it ?
Remember they were considering a large number of separate charges - for some of which they did not in the end decide there was sufficient evidence to convict.
It seems more likely that what took the time was the charges for which the evidence was not as clear cut. And it's pretty (very ?) unlikely they would have returned not guilty verdicts verdicts for all the charges.
I have no special knowledge or experience of criminal law but pay a lot of attention to the criminal justice system mainly after reading 'the secret barrister' a few years ago. What it seems to me is that you have cases where it is extremely clear cut and others where there is room for doubt. Even just digesting the reporting as an observer I think the latter applies here and I would not be surprised if there are appeals in the future that seek to unpick the evidence that forms the basis of the convictions. Obviously if these appeals are successful then the narrative about the situation will change completely as we have seen recently with other cases.
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
The offences were so serious, and in such numbers, that the judge had very little choice in the sentence.
Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?
I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
A whole life sentence was inevitable. The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence. I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
Admitting guilt is useful but not necessary and certainly shouldn't be made an aim of the system, which would inevitably put improper pressure on the police to secure 'confessions' and the like, or for innocent people to be forced into game theory scenarios.
It's for the justice system to prove guilt. If people want to admit that earlier, good, and give them some recognition of that in the sentence (as it does); avoiding the monetary, time and emotional costs of a trial is beneficial, all else being equal. But those incentives shouldn't be overplayed - and especially not in the most serious of cases.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
[applause]
Upscale places (which is where it's at for the Lib Dems these days) have upscale names.
In the recent boundary review, there were complaints from some residents about being moved from Hornchurch and Upminster (mildly eccentric gentlemen's socks) to Romford (enough said) because of the possible effect on the value of their houses.
Um, Ilford used to have a photographic film factory. The site is now a Sainsbury's.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
[applause]
Upscale places (which is where it's at for the Lib Dems these days) have upscale names.
In the recent boundary review, there were complaints from some residents about being moved from Hornchurch and Upminster (mildly eccentric gentlemen's socks) to Romford (enough said) because of the possible effect on the value of their houses.
I was gazing down the list of constituencies to find the roughest sounding. Romford is obviously one. Boston and Skegness another. Could Romford be a classy brand? Perhaps yes: expensive cycling gears. "I've invested in Romfords - much smoother than the old Shimanos and I find they rarely slip".
My grandfather used to get through thirty Romfords a day, claiming he found Navy Cut too smooth a smoke.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
So you’re fine with someone committing a crime in the UK and getting off scot free?
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
So you’re fine with someone committing a crime in the UK and getting off scot free?
I find this comparison in the thread header to be utterly misleading: "Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
I find this comparison in the thread header to be utterly misleading: "Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
The fun thing for us, viewers on the night, is that even if Labour scrapes home with a tiny majority or a hung Parliament, we’re going to see many seats flipping, including probably some that have long been conservative. So there could be the appearance of a landslide even if no actual landslide majority.
That’s why 2001 didn’t feel that landslidy: there weren’t multiple seats being won from conservatives. Just existing seats being retained.
I find this comparison in the thread header to be utterly misleading: "Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
The point is at this moment Labour need to win 124 seats for a majority, compared to Blair's 143.
Man Who Shot Store Owner for Flying Pride Flag Was a Far-Right Conspiracist https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ed4q/laura-carleton-pride-flag-shooting The man who shot and killed the store owner last week over her display of a pride flag outside her store was a far-right conspiracy theorist who shared deeply anti-LGBTQ and antisemitic content on his social media accounts.
Travis Ikeguchi, 27, shot Laura Ann Carleton, 66, on Friday after “yelling many homophobic slurs” about the store’s pride flag, San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus said at a news conference Monday...
...The shooter only followed 19 people on X, including One American News, former President Donald Trump, and conspiracy theorist David Knight, who once worked with Alex Jones. The shooter also followed and boosted rightwing professor and conspiracy theory promoter Jordan Peterson, antivax activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and the right-wing satirical website the Babylon Bee.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
So you’re fine with someone committing a crime in the UK and getting off scot free?
Perhaps he's a judge?
Following Convention standards seems to be a better system than the European Arrest Warrant, which was far too automatic.
I posted the numbers the other day that 15-20% of our prison population are innocent people that have not yet been proven guilty.
The Govt know what needs to be done to create room, but as ever this lot are butt-sitting.
Trump won’t be attending the Republican debate tomorrow (nor seemingly any of the Republican debates), but has an interview with Tucker Carlson scheduled against it, live on Twitter.
The fun bit was in Tucker’s contract with Fox, which says he’s not allowed to work for any other network, that Youtube and Rumble accounts also belong to the network - but that his Twitter account is his own.
Fox never thought that Twitter would become a place for long-form video, and Carlson and Musk are taking advantage.
Aren’t Fox suing Carlson on the basis that this still counts and he’s in violation?
World popcorn prices up another 10% on that news, having risen 85% in the previous 36 hours anyway.
Now I’ve got to check whether I’d remembered this correctly…
Let me do some Googling…
OK, one of the J6 insurrectionists is suing Carlson because Carlson said he was an FBI mole.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
So you’re fine with someone committing a crime in the UK and getting off scot free?
{innocent face}
Perhaps he has a personal interest in such an outcome?
Zero real terms wage growth over 13 years. Has any Gov't managed that particular feat before ?
The irony of 2016.
The rubbish wage growth in the runup to the referendum was a cause of the result tipping the way it did. The fallout of the referendum was then a cause of the ongoing rubbish wage growth.
Wages the same in real terms when Cameron was elected, when we voted for Brexit and now.
Date / CPI rebased Jan 2000 / CPIH rebased Jan 2000 May 2010 335 339 Jun 2016 332 335 Jun 2023 335 338
But a far higher proportion of the working age population is in work, in 2023 than in 2010. So, real median household income is 11% higher in 2023 than in 2010.
And the deficit is much lower than in 2010, despite the fact that there's many more working households today.
Apportion the deficit as a per-capita or per-household reduction to income (as its borrowed income from the future, not income from today) and the figures diverge even further.
Despite the fact that I think Sunak is completely mismanaging the economy, the economy is in a much healthier position today than it was in 2010.
I find this comparison in the thread header to be utterly misleading: "Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
The point is at this moment Labour need to win 124 seats for a majority, compared to Blair's 143.
Don't see personally how that's misleading.
It’s factually correct but the point is a large number of those were recently Labour and should more easily flip back. Blair was eating far further into safe Tory territory.
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
May I be the first to express my devastation that we won't be welcoming this gentleman to an expensive facility in our rainy haven just yet.
So you’re fine with someone committing a crime in the UK and getting off scot free?
{innocent face}
Perhaps he has a personal interest in such an outcome?
The alleged crim isn't doing any of his criminalising in the UK, and the UK isn't paying for his upkeep.
From a certain perspective, that probably is a win-win.
I find this comparison in the thread header to be utterly misleading: "Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
The point is at this moment Labour need to win 124 seats for a majority, compared to Blair's 143.
Don't see personally how that's misleading.
It’s factually correct but the point is a large number of those were recently Labour and should more easily flip back. Blair was eating far further into safe Tory territory.
Canterbury and Putney were recently Tory. That doesn't mean they 'should more easily flip back.'
I find this comparison in the thread header to be utterly misleading: "Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
The point is at this moment Labour need to win 124 seats for a majority, compared to Blair's 143.
Don't see personally how that's misleading.
Surely they need to GAIN 124?
I don't think the header is misleading, but it's also not unreasonable to point out Starmer doesn't need to WIN anything like the 418 seats secured by Blair to enter Downing Street... a bare majority will do, and indeed he'd probably cobble something together short of that.
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
On topic, I see plenty of experienced punters warning about August polls, indeed any poll this far out from a GE.
Intuitively I feel the air will be thick with chickens coming home to roost as the fateful day approaches, but I wouldn't be betting it, not yet at least. I wouldn't be surprised by any result giving the Tories anything from 100 to 250 seats. Outside that very broad band I would be surprised, but even if I'm right that is such a wide spectrum it is virtually useless for betting purposes.
I'll sharpen up nearer the date. Promise.
Yes. it is very much up in the air. A Labour majority is much more likely than not. Labour largest party can only be stopped by A Very Black Swan.
If I were betting (I'm not) I might have a dabble on LD seats. The standard projections are based on vote shares but in practice we know the Yellow Peril are good at targeting, so I'm guessing they could get up to around 40 seats.
Doesn't exactly get the pulse racing though, even if correct.
The typical LD general election target seat is now largely upper middle class, wealthy, highly educated, with well above average house price but which also voted Remain, found most often in the Home Counties. Also similar seats elsewhere like Cheltenham or Hazel Grove.
Basically seats which dislike Brexit but are still too posh to vote Labour. That is where they could make significant progress if targeted heavily
These are the 33 seats that Electoral Calculus is suggesting could be LibDem gains, plus existing LibDem seats makes 40+. Many in the West Country.
Of those existing LD target seats then I make more in the Home Counties than the entire North of England and Midlands and Wales combined.
Plus as you say some of the traditionally LD seats in the South West the LDs lost in 2015
The one surprise in that list of possible LD seats is Newcastle under Lyme. Does anyone have an explanation of this?
It is a university seat.
But even allowing for that, I think it's a typing error. The last time the Liberal Democrats even got over 20% of the vote there was in 1992.
My guess is that the seat should be Newton Abbot in Devon. It's the next English constituency alphabetically after Newcastle-under-Lyme which, as has been pointed out, cannot possibly be correct.
Newton Aycliffe also cannot possibly be correct - I think there are a couple of obvious errors in that part of the list.
Here is the corrected list. Apologies for the mistype.
Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Cambridgeshire South Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chesham and Amersham Chippenham Cornwall North Devon North Dorset West Eastbourne Eastleigh Esher and Walton Fife North East Frome and East Somerset Glastonbury and Somerton Guildford Harrogate and Knaresborough Hazel Grove Lewes Melksham and Devizes Mid Dunbartonshire Newbury Norfolk North St Ives Sutton and Cheam Thornbury and Yate Wells and Mendip Hills Westmorland and Lonsdale Wimbledon Winchester Yeovil
WHY do at least half of the double-barreled constituency names sound like they were dreamed up by an advertising agency for an upscale home-shopping channel . . . or a new brand of over-priced soap?
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Pretty much all of them work as high-end brand names, which the exception of Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross which sounds like a firm of solicitors, and the geographical ones (e.g. Cambridgeshire South):
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts Cheltenham: spa products Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries Chippenham: classic sports cars Eastbourne: sparkling wine Eastleigh: free range eggs Esher and Walton: men's overcoats Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths Guildford: Rugby football outfitters Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers Lewes: golfing shoes Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks St Ives: actual facial care brand Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale) Wimbledon: tennis tournament Winchester: top public school Yeovil: cricket equipment
[applause]
Upscale places (which is where it's at for the Lib Dems these days) have upscale names.
In the recent boundary review, there were complaints from some residents about being moved from Hornchurch and Upminster (mildly eccentric gentlemen's socks) to Romford (enough said) because of the possible effect on the value of their houses.
Map of Seattle, as with many other US cities large and small, bears witness to the snob appeal of British (mostly English) names to American real estate developers starting in approximately 1492.
Among our neighborhoods - Windermere, Wallingford, Wedgwood - and that's just the Ws!
Also Queen Anne (actually a Hill and cluster of hoods for example Lower Queen Anne), Brighton and . . . wait for it . . . Broadmoor . . . which in Seattle is an exclusive gated community . . .
Plus Broadview, Greenwood, Laurelhurst, Crown Hill which which reflect homage of American property speculators to the Mother Country.
I find this comparison in the thread header to be utterly misleading: "Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
Just for a bit of fun, looked up the recently released "religion brought up in" stats for Census 2021 on the NISRA website. @HYUFD may be interested that his beloved County Antrim has lost its overall Protestant majority (rather a plurality now), only County Down currently has an outright Protestant majority.
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
I'm highly partisan and I also agree that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority for the reasons you give. That would be a terrific outcome.
Unfortunately a non-partisan analysis (to the extent that is possible) indicates a Labour overall majority and most punters agree as can be seen on Betfair. I don't think the majority will be as great as my earlier wind-up post indicated! But I would take 100/1 on the Labour majority being greater than 100.
I can't wait for the seats markets to open.
For what values of N, where N is a natural number less than 612, would you take N/1 on there being a Labour majority > N?
Great question!
I think I would take a bet of N/1 of a Labour majority of >N for values of N between 2 and 200. But I'm not offering.
A new improved political compass, in the binary letter-combo style of Myers Briggs. Covering the 6 principal faultlines in British politics and ideology (or at least on PB):
Like Myers-Briggs, a forced preference - you have to fall on one side or other rather than claiming to be in the centre or that it depends.
1. Economics, which instead of left vs right I would define as socialised vs market. The extremes on each side being freewheeling market fundamentalism and communism, but in Britain more a case of believing in more or less state intervention in the economy:
S = socialised M = market
2. Social and identity politics: traditionalist/authoritarian vs liberal. Are you woke or anti-woke? Should we topple statues of slavers? Do we need a lavatory tsar and so on.
W = woke A = anti-woke
3. Green politics: are you an eco-warrior who wants us all on our bikes, stopping drilling in the North Sea and installing heat pumps, or are you a petrolhead who upholds everyone's right to keep 3 gas guzzlers in the cul-de-sac, thinks LTNs are the spawn of the devil, and wonders if the climate crisis stuff isn't just a tad overwrought.
E = eco-warrior P = petrolhead
4. Nimby vs Yimby. Should we concrete over the green belt and build build build because the country needs infrastructure, or protect what remains of our green and pleasant land?
N = nimby Y = yimby
5. Russia and Ukraine: are you a hawk or a dove? Do you despair of keyboard toy soldiers bloodthirstily escalating until the last Ukrainian / global thermonuclear war, and understand Russia's historical concerns on NATO expansion and the rights of Russian speakers in Donbas? Or do you see Putin as a fascist thug who must be defeated to avoid greater problems down the line?
D = dove H = hawk
6. Brexit or remain. In or out?
B = Brexit R = remain [rejoin]
As of today I am MWEYHR, although a couple of those are marginal (S/M and N/Y).
Hmmm. Assuming "X" as a noncommittal option, that would make me...
SWXXHX
This is not as helpful as I thought...
SAPYHR
I'm SAPYHR too. That surprises me brother. Don't know why.
The betting doesn't (as yet) reflect a Con recovery. Lab Maj still about 1.5.
Getting nervous Kina? Only the highly partisan, such as yourself, don't realise that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority. Starmer is dull enough to make a good leader of a coalition, and Ed Davey would make a goodish deputy PM.
I'm highly partisan and I also agree that the best outcome for the country is Labour with no overall majority for the reasons you give. That would be a terrific outcome.
Unfortunately a non-partisan analysis (to the extent that is possible) indicates a Labour overall majority and most punters agree as can be seen on Betfair. I don't think the majority will be as great as my earlier wind-up post indicated! But I would take 100/1 on the Labour majority being greater than 100.
I can't wait for the seats markets to open.
For what values of N, where N is a natural number less than 612, would you take N/1 on there being a Labour majority > N?
Great question!
I think I would take a bet of N/1 of a Labour majority of >N for values of N between 2 and 200. But I'm not offering.
A new improved political compass, in the binary letter-combo style of Myers Briggs. Covering the 6 principal faultlines in British politics and ideology (or at least on PB):
Like Myers-Briggs, a forced preference - you have to fall on one side or other rather than claiming to be in the centre or that it depends.
1. Economics, which instead of left vs right I would define as socialised vs market. The extremes on each side being freewheeling market fundamentalism and communism, but in Britain more a case of believing in more or less state intervention in the economy:
S = socialised M = market
2. Social and identity politics: traditionalist/authoritarian vs liberal. Are you woke or anti-woke? Should we topple statues of slavers? Do we need a lavatory tsar and so on.
W = woke A = anti-woke
3. Green politics: are you an eco-warrior who wants us all on our bikes, stopping drilling in the North Sea and installing heat pumps, or are you a petrolhead who upholds everyone's right to keep 3 gas guzzlers in the cul-de-sac, thinks LTNs are the spawn of the devil, and wonders if the climate crisis stuff isn't just a tad overwrought.
E = eco-warrior P = petrolhead
4. Nimby vs Yimby. Should we concrete over the green belt and build build build because the country needs infrastructure, or protect what remains of our green and pleasant land?
N = nimby Y = yimby
5. Russia and Ukraine: are you a hawk or a dove? Do you despair of keyboard toy soldiers bloodthirstily escalating until the last Ukrainian / global thermonuclear war, and understand Russia's historical concerns on NATO expansion and the rights of Russian speakers in Donbas? Or do you see Putin as a fascist thug who must be defeated to avoid greater problems down the line?
D = dove H = hawk
6. Brexit or remain. In or out?
B = Brexit R = remain [rejoin]
As of today I am MWEYHR, although a couple of those are marginal (S/M and N/Y).
Hmmm. Assuming "X" as a noncommittal option, that would make me...
SWXXHX
This is not as helpful as I thought...
SAPYHR
I'm SAPYHR too. That surprises me brother. Don't know why.
I find the basis of this header odd, with most recent Opinium and YouGov putting Tories at 26%. In fact the political takeout from all polling types from all firms is how voters view Sunak, who has become the undeniable blocker on a Tory recovery.
Lightweight, too green and unconvincing for the top job. I’ve watched over sheep with more gravitas. For a saviour, they anointed a dud.
Yes the lead shrinks, but many posters to PB have remarked for months, if the most discernible movement in the polling is Lab to LibDem, and not Tory recovery, this is the scariest scenario bar none for the Tories, in terms of tactical voting, and the combined Lab+LibDem numbers in Blue Wall polling in particular. Although Tories -1 whilst Lab drop 6 will be proved one rogue poll, a gradual, almost unseen at first, move from Labour to LibDem could happen over the next 12 months.
Alternatively, the polling could remain as now, and the surprising exit poll of Labour 39, Con 28, LibDem 18, Reform 2 could come out of nowhere. Not that Reform polling breaks to LibDem, the Refs sit on their hands disgusted with their own enablement of years of incompetence and outright corruption, whilst LLG tactical votes always knew what to do in General Election, just never told pollsters about it. That would not surprise me one bit. In fact the resulting carnage would closely mirror real votes at the 2023 locals.
The UNS and MVS seat models cannot handle a 39/28/18 election, they will be long way out. Look how they give Tory seats to Labour where Labour don’t even have council seats, yet the LibDems have a presence there.
Look not upon “the lead” in the coming 12 months, but the party shares. Labour would love 42% PV at next General Election, as of now average some way over this - the Tories will truly suffer with a PB of 30 or less. And they haven’t averaged 30% for a long time now.
There are more predictive things to focus on - the Tory share level, and we should also keep an eye on how the Tory+Reform figure is shrinking, is it not? Also, where there is evidence of the oft spoken of largish lake of don’t knows, if/when this starts to drain, is it breaking to the Tory total as much as it will need to?
Comments
1997: 13,518,167 votes
2001: 10,724,953 votes
2005: 9,552,436 votes
On one hand it was £7 per person, first class, based on two sharing a private cabin. On the other hand there’s no aircon, and only one toilet between a couple of hundred of us for the next 15 hours!
Perhaps some photos to follow…
May I be the first to say the instinct of the system, will be to turn regulation of mangers into a stick to beat the non-compliant with. Just as with complaints about doctors to the GMC.
Had a first look at the data.
The median wage is *completely unchanged* in real terms since May 2010. There was a ~ 14.4% real terms rise in the 2000s.
** Up 0.05% relative to CPI, down 0.9% relative to CPIH. **
I would add that I think it is very unhelpful that she was given a whole life sentence because it is now highly unlikely that she will ever confess to the crimes with no possible pathway to redemption. Instead it creates an incentive for her to pursue appeals even if she is guilty with all the trauma and uncertainty that would occur if she was successful and got released.
You could start a whole department of Decorative Avian Pet Enclosure Infrastructure, spend £37 billion a year, get a peerage etc.
That all the parrots died is a minor detail - and there’s always an enquiry to cover that up.
"Discerning, high-class customers may shop with complete confidence at our exclusive Thornbury and Yate website."
"If you desire the fresh, appealing scent of one whose's inherited all their furniture, cleanse yourself with the ample, luxurious suds of super-fine soaps by Sutton and Cheam."
Since then they've been in a corridor of 6.9 to 9.2 - currently @ 8.2.
Would ordering her to serve a minimum of 50 years have made a difference, except to try and have her lawyer bargain it down to 30 years on the basis of her age and immaturity, accepting responsibility etc., finishing up with the parents of these children potentially seeing her released in their own lifetimes?
I suspect that she’ll have an awful lot of counselling over the coming weeks, months, and years, and can hopefully bring herself to understand the gravity of what she’s done.
Another Brexit win right?
The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court consequently demanded guarantees from the UK regarding compliance with minimum standards in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and asked the UK to report on to which prisons the Albanian would be sent and on the state of his future prison conditions. This was not requested under the European Arrest Warrant system, which of course no longer applies to the UK, but under Article 604 (c) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed between the UK and the EU, which says:
The senior Conservative MP, who is standing down at the next election, was given permission by the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba) to set up a company to advise businesses on farming technology and the water sector.
However, the watchdog said there was a “significant risk” that clients could “be considered to gain” from his insight of government and “inherent risks” that the former minister could give them “unfair access” to government.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/22/watchdog-gives-george-eustice-strict-rules-for-new-consultancy-firm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The cracks in the party really started to show after Iraq. Blair was seen as being in the way by Brownites and increasingly as a liability. But in this scenario there isn't an impatient jostling for position. The War Against Terror has been an unexpected diversion, but diversion it is from their ongoing mission to remake Britain.
So I would expect the 2005 result not to be as strong as it was for the LDs. Perhaps a majority of 80-100, with an ongoing programme and no change in the duopoly at the top, a political ying and yang rather than embittered infighting.
We would likely still see a 2010 election to allow to fix the horrors of the GFC, but Blair would absolutely win again, this time with a majority cut to at least 66 or maybe closer to Thatcher in 1979. We already saw the prime timeline Osborne pledged to inflate the growth bubble even faster - match every pound of Labour investment plus additional growth to pay for tax cuts on top. In this alternate timeline what do Cameron and Osbrown have to offer?
The tragedy of that era truly was the Blair Brown spat. Because of it that government did so much to fiddle around the edges of the structural problems in the economy without having the political will to do anything substantial about them.
Very obviously - given the jury was unable to reach a guilty verdict on some of the charges - they were not.
Failure.
The rubbish wage growth in the runup to the referendum was a cause of the result tipping the way it did. The fallout of the referendum was then a cause of the ongoing rubbish wage growth.
Carshalton and Wallington: posh wellies
Cheadle: organic kefir, cultured butter and yoghurts
Cheltenham: spa products
Chesham and Amersham: men's toiletries
Chippenham: classic sports cars
Eastbourne: sparkling wine
Eastleigh: free range eggs
Esher and Walton: men's overcoats
Glastonbury and Somerton: traditional gunsmiths
Guildford: Rugby football outfitters
Harrogate and Knaresborough: loose leaf tea
Hazel Grove: fine chocolatiers
Lewes: golfing shoes
Melksham and Devizes: unpasteurised cheeses
Newbury: checked scarves and anoraks
St Ives: actual facial care brand
Sutton and Cheam: men's shaving products
Thornbury and Yate: organic rare breed butchers
Wells and Mendip Hills: sparkling spring water
Westmorland and Lonsdale: actual sports equipment brand (well, Lonsdale)
Wimbledon: tennis tournament
Winchester: top public school
Yeovil: cricket equipment
Date / CPI rebased Jan 2000 / CPIH rebased Jan 2000
May 2010 335 339
Jun 2016 332 335
Jun 2023 335 338
"The German court was not impressed by the reply it received from the UK, which eventually arrived from a police station in Manchester on the last day of the deadline set by the court. The e-mail contained no guarantees, but indicated that the UK was planning to create 20,000 new prison places to overcome overcrowding (which seems rather to concede the point made by the defence lawyer in the first place). There was no specific information on the planned place of detention, but only an indication that the first prison would probably be in the London area."
bravo!
However IF you're going for bilking aspirational twits on a global scale, stick with the double-barrel monikers.
Upscale places (which is where it's at for the Lib Dems these days) have upscale names.
In the recent boundary review, there were complaints from some residents about being moved from Hornchurch and Upminster (mildly eccentric gentlemen's socks) to Romford (enough said) because of the possible effect on the value of their houses.
"It feels like indifference to those on the receiving end. But perhaps its impulse is less the effect on the victims but more a desire to save face by those responsible. The truth about what happened was important to the families. It mattered that this was publicly acknowledged. But this public acknowledgement is something the authorities find hard to accept or admit. (The paradox is that the later it is said the more victims will want something else — compensation or prosecutions — as a substitute.) It is not just concerns about having to pay compensation which drives this, important as it is. It harms an institution’s self-image and, often, of senior people within it. “We got it wrong.” is hard to say. If “we get it wrong” what sort of a “we” are we, really? Avoiding the shame of having to admit that your actions or inactions have been responsible for the suffering of others is what drives this defensiveness and indifference."
Pre-Covid, the UK's wages per house may not have been different to 2010, but the deficit absolutely was.
Post 2016, nothing in 2016 has restricted wage growth either. The UK has continued with its existing productivity and growth issues. If anything, wages at the bottom of the market are now rising faster than pre-2016 since employers can no longer just import people for minimum wage.
The minimum term is just about eligibility for parole - that's it. It doesn't mean people will actually ever be freed. Life without parole dissuades people from ever admitting guilt because their only way out is by proclaiming innocence.
I realise my views on this are quite unpopular but I think the longest minimum terms should be is about 20 years - beyond which you people can apply for parole, and in any scenario any release is closely supervised and on license. Obviously parole is never inevitable. This is how things are in other European countries AIUI, which often have a better resourced offender management and parole system with lower prison populations and more public confidence in the justice system.
The Brexity bits of the suburban South East might be the big hold out. Rich enough to be doing OK under this government, patriotic and anti-woke, lots of retired, not disillusioned by the promises of levelling up, but far enough from the channel not to be annoyed by post-Brexit transport disruption.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Newcastle-under-Lyme_by-election
New Labour, New Dressing.
Thou has't summoned the demons from the deeps, foolish mortal....
It's for the justice system to prove guilt. If people want to admit that earlier, good, and give them some recognition of that in the sentence (as it does); avoiding the monetary, time and emotional costs of a trial is beneficial, all else being equal. But those incentives shouldn't be overplayed - and especially not in the most serious of cases.
"Labour is going to need to make nearly as many gains as Tony Blair secured at GE1997."
It's a misleading statement because it is harder to win a huge number of seats at a GE than it is to win just enough for a majority. It's easier to gain seats that you have held in recent memory than to gain seats that you have not held for many decades, if ever.
A less loaded way of describing what it will take for Labour to win a majority is this: Labour is going to need to win 92 fewer seats than Tony Blair secured at GE 1997. Or perhaps 100 less allowing for Sinn Fein not taking their seats.
That’s why 2001 didn’t feel that landslidy: there weren’t multiple seats being won from conservatives. Just existing seats being retained.
Don't see personally how that's misleading.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ed4q/laura-carleton-pride-flag-shooting
The man who shot and killed the store owner last week over her display of a pride flag outside her store was a far-right conspiracy theorist who shared deeply anti-LGBTQ and antisemitic content on his social media accounts.
Travis Ikeguchi, 27, shot Laura Ann Carleton, 66, on Friday after “yelling many homophobic slurs” about the store’s pride flag, San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus said at a news conference Monday...
...The shooter only followed 19 people on X, including One American News, former President Donald Trump, and conspiracy theorist David Knight, who once worked with Alex Jones. The shooter also followed and boosted rightwing professor and conspiracy theory promoter Jordan Peterson, antivax activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and the right-wing satirical website the Babylon Bee.
I posted the numbers the other day that 15-20% of our prison population are innocent people that have not yet been proven guilty.
The Govt know what needs to be done to create room, but as ever this lot are butt-sitting.
Let me do some Googling…
OK, one of the J6 insurrectionists is suing Carlson because Carlson said he was an FBI mole.
Aha… https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/12/tucker-carlson-twitter-show-fox-cease-desist Fox have threatened to sue Carlson, but unclear what’s happened since.
NEW THREAD
Perhaps he has a personal interest in such an outcome?
And the deficit is much lower than in 2010, despite the fact that there's many more working households today.
Apportion the deficit as a per-capita or per-household reduction to income (as its borrowed income from the future, not income from today) and the figures diverge even further.
Despite the fact that I think Sunak is completely mismanaging the economy, the economy is in a much healthier position today than it was in 2010.
From a certain perspective, that probably is a win-win.
I don't think the header is misleading, but it's also not unreasonable to point out Starmer doesn't need to WIN anything like the 418 seats secured by Blair to enter Downing Street... a bare majority will do, and indeed he'd probably cobble something together short of that.
Among our neighborhoods - Windermere, Wallingford, Wedgwood - and that's just the Ws!
Also Queen Anne (actually a Hill and cluster of hoods for example Lower Queen Anne), Brighton and . . . wait for it . . . Broadmoor . . . which in Seattle is an exclusive gated community . . .
Plus Broadview, Greenwood, Laurelhurst, Crown Hill which which reflect homage of American property speculators to the Mother Country.
Lightweight, too green and unconvincing for the top job. I’ve watched over sheep with more gravitas. For a saviour, they anointed a dud.
Yes the lead shrinks, but many posters to PB have remarked for months, if the most discernible movement in the polling is Lab to LibDem, and not Tory recovery, this is the scariest scenario bar none for the Tories, in terms of tactical voting, and the combined Lab+LibDem numbers in Blue Wall polling in particular. Although Tories -1 whilst Lab drop 6 will be proved one rogue poll, a gradual, almost unseen at first, move from Labour to LibDem could happen over the next 12 months.
Alternatively, the polling could remain as now, and the surprising exit poll of Labour 39, Con 28, LibDem 18, Reform 2 could come out of nowhere. Not that Reform polling breaks to LibDem, the Refs sit on their hands disgusted with their own enablement of years of incompetence and outright corruption, whilst LLG tactical votes always knew what to do in General Election, just never told pollsters about it. That would not surprise me one bit. In fact the resulting carnage would closely mirror real votes at the 2023 locals.
The UNS and MVS seat models cannot handle a 39/28/18 election, they will be long way out. Look how they give Tory seats to Labour where Labour don’t even have council seats, yet the LibDems have a presence there.
Look not upon “the lead” in the coming 12 months, but the party shares. Labour would love 42% PV at next General Election, as of now average some way over this - the Tories will truly suffer with a PB of 30 or less. And they haven’t averaged 30% for a long time now.
There are more predictive things to focus on - the Tory share level, and we should also keep an eye on how the Tory+Reform figure is shrinking, is it not? Also, where there is evidence of the oft spoken of largish lake of don’t knows, if/when this starts to drain, is it breaking to the Tory total as much as it will need to?