Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200
Because, quite clearly, it’s only because the highly paid geniuses in charge that the FTSE hasn’t gone from 8,000 to 7,100. Just think how many billions in value that extra 100 is worth. Or something.
They reckoned it was to stop all that talent being pinched by International giants
AM "One thing is looking pretty clear and that [is that] the days of Labour leads of 20% plus are no longer there and we are seeing a little bit of a recovery in the LDs totals"
PM: Cons 25% Labour 50% LibDems 9%: Labour lead 25%
Pride goeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall, and a reasonable prediction will always be contradicted by a new poll.
If the courts reject the government's deport migrants to Rwanda and offshore barges policy I expect the percentage of voters wanting to leave it would also rise
One silver lining of an increasingly loony Tory party is that they are so unpopular, if they hitch themselves to the ECHR departure cart they could help to drag down the idea with them. Like they've done to the reputation of Brexit (though that's more of a symbiotic relationship)
The 37% or so who still back Brexit is significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare
Seattle Times ($) - Attorney for 2020 gubernatorial candidate Loren Culp suspended for ‘frivolous’ vote-fraud claims
The state Supreme Court has suspended the law license of an attorney for 2020 Republican gubernatorial candidate Loren Culp for abusing the legal system by making frivolous claims of widespread voter fraud in that election.
Stephen W. Pidgeon, the attorney who sued the state on Culp’s behalf, claiming the 2020 election was illegitimate, only to withdraw the case under threat of legal sanctions, will be prohibited from practicing law in the state for one year, according to the Supreme Court order. The suspension is effective Aug. 21.
In suspending Pidgeon, the state Supreme Court upheld charges by the state bar association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which brought a formal complaint against him in December 2022.
A hearing officer in April of this year concluded that Pidgeon had violated rules of professional conduct for lawyers by knowingly “bringing a frivolous proceeding and asserting frivolous claims.”
Pidgeon’s actions caused injury “to the legal system and legal profession,” wrote the hearing officer, Randolph Petgrave III, adding that “aggravating factors” in the case included Pidgeon’s refusal to admit his “wrongful” conduct and his failure to respond to the bar association’s formal charges.
In a phone interview Monday, Pidgeon shrugged off the penalty, saying he has not been working as an attorney since the Culp lawsuit, and now lives in Alaska, where he gives religious talks. He voluntarily resigned from the state bar last year, records show. . . .
SSI - "religious talks"! Pity the fool who has this grifter for their spiritual guide!
Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 25% (-4) Lab 50% (+4) Lib Dem 9% (-3) Other 17% (+4) Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023 Sample: 1,520 GB adults (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)
The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.
Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.
Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.
Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.
Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.
The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.
I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
The thing is it is not just the Court. It is the Convention as well. You cannot be a signatory to the Convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the court.
Which is why when people say it was created by Churchill it is false. What Churchill designed was a Convention that was signed multinationally but enforced domestically. There was no international overriding of Parliament in Churchill's day, the Court came later.
No reason why we couldn't revert IMHO to a modernised version of what Churchill had, which would be an equivalent Convention enforced in the UK Supreme Court.
I don't particularly think we should leave the Convention, but if we were to do so I wouldn't object either, so long as we had a domestic alternative put in its place. I'm agnostic over it.
That is simply not true. The Convention that Churchill designed with Mitterand and Adenauer and subsequently signed explicitly included the Court to oversee and adjudicate. The fact that it took a further 6 years to actually come into existence does not mean it was not part of the convention from the start nor that Churchill did not approve of it. It was a Briton, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who devised the convention and Churchill signed the declaration bringing it into existence at the end of the 1948 Congress that created both the Convention and the Court.
"We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."
The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.
Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.
Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.
Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.
Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.
The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.
I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
The thing is it is not just the Court. It is the Convention as well. You cannot be a signatory to the Convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the court.
Which is why when people say it was created by Churchill it is false. What Churchill designed was a Convention that was signed multinationally but enforced domestically. There was no international overriding of Parliament in Churchill's day, the Court came later.
No reason why we couldn't revert IMHO to a modernised version of what Churchill had, which would be an equivalent Convention enforced in the UK Supreme Court.
I don't particularly think we should leave the Convention, but if we were to do so I wouldn't object either, so long as we had a domestic alternative put in its place. I'm agnostic over it.
That is simply not true. The Convention that Churchill designed with Mitterand and Adenauer and subsequently signed explicitly included the Court to oversee and adjudicate. The fact that it took a further 6 years to actually come into existence does not mean it was not part of the convention from the start nor that Churchill did not approve of it. It was a Briton, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who devised the convention and Churchill signed the declaration bringing it into existence at the end of the 1948 Congress that created both the Convention and the Court.
"We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."
I stand corrected, I was wrong.
Still, no reason why IMHO we need an international Court on Justice instead of a domestic Supreme Court like other Parliamentary Common Law democracies.
As far as the ECtHR is concerned, it has failed to stand up to countries (like Russia) that remain signatories but disregard human rights.
Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 25% (-4) Lab 50% (+4) Lib Dem 9% (-3) Other 17% (+4) Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023 Sample: 1,520 GB adults (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)
Deltapoll's consistent refusal to tweet the scores for Green, SNP and Ref meaning you have to go and dig into the detailed release is infuriating. Possibly deliberate, to get more click throughs. Other 17% sounds a lot. Lib Dem 9% looks too low.
Following this poll, the EMA/Electoral Calculus has added Dorking and Horley to the Lib Dem list.
The current behavior of the Italian Government as posted on here yesterday (I apologise I forget who posted it) regarding Gay parents seems to me the perfect example of where the ECHR should be getting involved. I am sorry that they do not appear to have done so yet.
Needless to say we should not be leaving the ECHR. It am saddened that ony a minority (albeit by a couple of points) agree with me.
Ideally we should not leave the ECHR, but quite equally the ECHR is not fit for purpose.
Absolutely that is a prime case where the ECHR should be involved surely, but there's plenty of other cases where it should but did not.
Its worth remembering that prior to last year's latest invasion of Ukraine, that Russia were full members of the ECHR. I hardly feel like January 2022's Russia was a representative democracy with full, free and fair elections and a free press.
The ECHR is a good idea in theory, but in practice is about as much use as telling teens to 'pull out' to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
The problem with the advocates of leaving the ECHR is that they end up like the idiots in the US who want to defund the police. Reform is essential but it won't happen if you just shut the whole thing down without something equally powerful to replace it.
We could have what almost every other English speaking Common Law Parliamentary democracy in the world has, which is a domestic Supreme Court. Its good enough for Australia and Canada and New Zealand. There's nothing special about simply by an accident of geography happening to be in Europe which means we need to be in the ECHR in my view.
I'm ambivalent as to whether we stay or go, either are legitimate choices. Out of sheer inertia I'd probably say we should stay in it, but there's no philosophical reason why its better than a domestic Supreme Court.
The thing is it is not just the Court. It is the Convention as well. You cannot be a signatory to the Convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the court.
Which is why when people say it was created by Churchill it is false. What Churchill designed was a Convention that was signed multinationally but enforced domestically. There was no international overriding of Parliament in Churchill's day, the Court came later.
No reason why we couldn't revert IMHO to a modernised version of what Churchill had, which would be an equivalent Convention enforced in the UK Supreme Court.
I don't particularly think we should leave the Convention, but if we were to do so I wouldn't object either, so long as we had a domestic alternative put in its place. I'm agnostic over it.
That is simply not true. The Convention that Churchill designed with Mitterand and Adenauer and subsequently signed explicitly included the Court to oversee and adjudicate. The fact that it took a further 6 years to actually come into existence does not mean it was not part of the convention from the start nor that Churchill did not approve of it. It was a Briton, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who devised the convention and Churchill signed the declaration bringing it into existence at the end of the 1948 Congress that created both the Convention and the Court.
"We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."
I stand corrected, I was wrong.
Still, no reason why IMHO we need an international Court on Justice instead of a domestic Supreme Court like other Parliamentary Common Law democracies.
As far as the ECtHR is concerned, it has failed to stand up to countries (like Russia) that remain signatories but disregard human rights.
Perhaps because the other Democracies you allude to have never sought to bind their neighbours to their own vision of democracy and law through a voluntary convention. We chose to devise a system to ensure that our neighbours adhered to a set of standards that we wished to promote. It seems perverse for us to now disown those standards and that system for petty party political advantage - which is all this is really about.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
Talking about usual suspects, has anybody heard from @MarqueeMark recently?. He's AWOL.
I am friends with him and share various groups with him on Facebook and he is still active there as of yesterday so I know he is at least alive. Shame he has not posted here recently as we share very similar views on many things.
Talking about usual suspects, has anybody heard from @MarqueeMark recently?. He's AWOL.
I am friends with him and share various groups with him on Facebook and he is still active there as of yesterday so I know he is at least alive. Shame he has not posted here recently as we share very similar views on many things.
He's got a good inside track on canvassing matters.
Trump Super PAC has created a “VP Presidential Debate” website ahead of Wednesday’s debate — complete w/ a bobble-head looking image of each candidate and an option to “vote” for who Trump should pick as his VP (plus some trolling “fast facts”)
Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 25% (-4) Lab 50% (+4) Lib Dem 9% (-3) Other 17% (+4) Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023 Sample: 1,520 GB adults (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)
Deltapoll's consistent refusal to tweet the scores for Green, SNP and Ref meaning you have to go and dig into the detailed release is infuriating. Possibly deliberate, to get more click throughs. Other 17% sounds a lot. Lib Dem 9% looks too low.
Following this poll, the EMA/Electoral Calculus has added Dorking and Horley to the Lib Dem list.
Dorking and Horley sounds a bit rough if you don't know it's Surrey commuter belt.
My nomination for hardest sounding constituency name is Dagenham and Rainham; a pair of old school coppers who don't stick to the rulebook but get results.
If the courts reject the government's deport migrants to Rwanda and offshore barges policy I expect the percentage of voters wanting to leave it would also rise
One silver lining of an increasingly loony Tory party is that they are so unpopular, if they hitch themselves to the ECHR departure cart they could help to drag down the idea with them. Like they've done to the reputation of Brexit (though that's more of a symbiotic relationship)
The 37% or so who still back Brexit is significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare
So a lot of the 37% who still back Brexit don't back the Tories.
Talking about usual suspects, has anybody heard from @MarqueeMark recently?. He's AWOL.
I am friends with him and share various groups with him on Facebook and he is still active there as of yesterday so I know he is at least alive. Shame he has not posted here recently as we share very similar views on many things.
He's got a good inside track on canvassing matters.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
If the courts reject the government's deport migrants to Rwanda and offshore barges policy I expect the percentage of voters wanting to leave it would also rise
One silver lining of an increasingly loony Tory party is that they are so unpopular, if they hitch themselves to the ECHR departure cart they could help to drag down the idea with them. Like they've done to the reputation of Brexit (though that's more of a symbiotic relationship)
The 37% or so who still back Brexit is significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare
So a lot of the 37% who still back Brexit don't back the Tories.
@HYUFD is missing representing the polling, by reporting the figures excluding DK/WNV
The yougov poll is 50% Rejoin, 30% stay out, 20% DK/WNV.
Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200
Possibly because they are playing in a global marketplace. They might conceivably have to pay even more to get the talent to get it up to 8000 again.
It now commands a higher price because there's more competition for it. But you can only do so much with it (create the right culture and strategy) because a lot is structural and beyond their control.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
Ending a sentence with a preposition? This is something up with which we must not put.
Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200
Possibly because they are playing in a global marketplace. They might conceivably have to pay even more to get the talent to get it up to 8000 again.
It now commands a higher price because there's more competition for it. But you can only do so much with it (create the right culture and strategy) because a lot is structural and beyond their control.
Health Care staff is also a global market place. Where's my 16%?
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 25% (-4) Lab 50% (+4) Lib Dem 9% (-3) Other 17% (+4) Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023 Sample: 1,520 GB adults (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)
Deltapoll's consistent refusal to tweet the scores for Green, SNP and Ref meaning you have to go and dig into the detailed release is infuriating. Possibly deliberate, to get more click throughs. Other 17% sounds a lot. Lib Dem 9% looks too low.
Following this poll, the EMA/Electoral Calculus has added Dorking and Horley to the Lib Dem list.
Dorking and Horley sounds a bit rough if you don't know it's Surrey commuter belt.
My nomination for hardest sounding constituency name is Dagenham and Rainham; a pair of old school coppers who don't stick to the rulebook but get results.
Whilst Blyth and Ashington seem to be lovely and kind.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
There is a dilemma though about language. Everyone knows that Wittgenstein says: "The meaning of a word is its use in the language”. Which is fair enough, until you think: Unless each word in that sentence has some sort of fixity, how can I know what Wittgenstein might mean? In which case he is wrong.
Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200
Possibly because they are playing in a global marketplace. They might conceivably have to pay even more to get the talent to get it up to 8000 again.
It now commands a higher price because there's more competition for it. But you can only do so much with it (create the right culture and strategy) because a lot is structural and beyond their control.
Health Care staff is also a global market place. Where's my 16%?
Which, indeed, is the natural response of many.
The answer is that there are far more playing in the health care market globally and there are many more positions, so the market is more liquid and shapable.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
I wonder if there’s a bit of a seasonal pattern to these polls, alongside the longer term trend - rejoin strongest after people have just returned from holidays. Partly because of queues, partly fond memories of the sunshine and nice food.
I can’t help but think the small boats issue has refocused the minds of those who saw immigration as a problem in 2016. Very clear delinking of migration from EU membership. It would he hard for Brexit (stay-out) campaigners to play on immigration in a future referendum. I think they could still go on sovereignty, and possibly payments still - “we can’t afford to spend another 350m a week when the NHS needs the money”, but that would stretch credibility a bit. The strongest argument for staying out, by far, would be “what’s done is done. Let’s not put ourselves through all that palaver again”.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
There is a dilemma though about language. Everyone knows that Wittgenstein says: "The meaning of a word is its use in the language”. Which is fair enough, until you think: Unless each word in that sentence has some sort of fixity, how can I know what Wittgenstein might mean? In which case he is wrong.
What he means by meaning is the way he uses meaning, just like I am. EDIT I hope that clarifies what I mean.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 25% (-4) Lab 50% (+4) Lib Dem 9% (-3) Other 17% (+4) Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023 Sample: 1,520 GB adults (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)
Deltapoll's consistent refusal to tweet the scores for Green, SNP and Ref meaning you have to go and dig into the detailed release is infuriating. Possibly deliberate, to get more click throughs. Other 17% sounds a lot. Lib Dem 9% looks too low.
Following this poll, the EMA/Electoral Calculus has added Dorking and Horley to the Lib Dem list.
Dorking and Horley sounds a bit rough if you don't know it's Surrey commuter belt.
My nomination for hardest sounding constituency name is Dagenham and Rainham; a pair of old school coppers who don't stick to the rulebook but get results.
Whilst Blyth and Ashington seem to be lovely and kind.
Bootle. Some weird boot-shaped creature in a 1970s children’s animation.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
If Jools Holland is what's on offer then I'd expect a massive landslide for Leave.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
It's not really clear what the polling is measuring other than general Breget, frustration with the existing government and the poor economic situation - all of which overlap to some extent.
Referendum polling is highly unpredictable and very subject to change during a campaign on the specifics, which you would have thought people had learnt right now - and is exactly what's going on in Australia at the moment.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
I’m pretty sure he’ll be more Brexity in office than remainers would like. What’s unclear far is whether that’s tactical, or an actual ideological journey. If it’s the latter he deserves congratulations for travelling in the opposite direction to most of his voters.
Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200
Possibly because they are playing in a global marketplace. They might conceivably have to pay even more to get the talent to get it up to 8000 again.
It now commands a higher price because there's more competition for it. But you can only do so much with it (create the right culture and strategy) because a lot is structural and beyond their control.
Doesn't Aapl outweigh the entire ftse100 ? More like the Vauxhall conference at the moment
Meanwhile, in the light of this morning's conversation,
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is twenty-five percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 25% (-4) Lab 50% (+4) Lib Dem 9% (-3) Other 17% (+4) Fieldwork: 17th-21st August 2023 Sample: 1,520 GB adults (Changes from 9th-11th August 2023)
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
I’m pretty sure he’ll be more Brexity in office than remainers would like. What’s unclear far is whether that’s tactical, or an actual ideological journey. If it’s the latter he deserves congratulations for travelling in the opposite direction to most of his voters.
It’ll be easier for him to manage expectations on negotiations. Unless he promises to rejoin, or to negotiate a very specific outcome he can’t deliver, he can basically achieve a fair bit without much fanfare, and choose to announce the good bits once they’re done.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
I’m pretty sure he’ll be more Brexity in office than remainers would like. What’s unclear far is whether that’s tactical, or an actual ideological journey. If it’s the latter he deserves congratulations for travelling in the opposite direction to most of his voters.
It’ll be easier for him to manage expectations on negotiations. Unless he promises to rejoin, or to negotiate a very specific outcome he can’t deliver, he can basically achieve a fair bit without much fanfare, and choose to announce the good bits once they’re done.
There's the potential for the EU to ask for too much in return in the mistaken belief that Starmer will just roll over.
Under Truss the Tories were heading for less than 50 seats, now the Tories are heading for about 150+
Cough *fewer* cough.
Nope.
Balls
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
What a load of old nonsense.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
How is any of it a "hill to die on"?
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
They may well be tempted to include it in the manifesto on the basis they’ll lose and never have to implement it.
A bit like Cameron included a Brexit referendum in his 2015 manifesto.
They can then shout at Starmer for the next 5 years every time there’s a migration or criminal justice issue, like they used to shout about the EU but now can’t.
Yes. Leaving the ECHR isn't a serious policy.
But then again, Brexit wasn't a serious policy either.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
The main problem is what the ECHR is rather than what it was envisaged to be. There should be no casewise appeal to the ECHR, although those same cases can and should be used in evidence to correct the paths of errant governments.
Listening to the CEO pay debate on LBC. How on earth is it up roughly 15% on average when the FTSE has gone from 8000 to 7200
Possibly because they are playing in a global marketplace. They might conceivably have to pay even more to get the talent to get it up to 8000 again.
It now commands a higher price because there's more competition for it. But you can only do so much with it (create the right culture and strategy) because a lot is structural and beyond their control.
Doesn't Aapl outweigh the entire ftse100 ? More like the Vauxhall conference at the moment
Not far off. But I doubt the UK would be better off if we started capping executive pay.
In fact, it would probably accelerate erosion of the FTSE100 and our services sector.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
Well it’s true, he didn’t prosecute her. Can’t say fairer than that. He also failed to prosecute Anders Breivik, and the DPP didn’t even open a file on Osama Bin Laden.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
It's no lie. He didn't prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
Well it’s true, he didn’t prosecute her. Can’t say fairer than that. He also failed to prosecute Anders Breivik, and the DPP didn’t even open a file on Osama Bin Laden.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
On the basis of this polling most red wall seats would now be majority rejoin.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
I’m pretty sure he’ll be more Brexity in office than remainers would like. What’s unclear far is whether that’s tactical, or an actual ideological journey. If it’s the latter he deserves congratulations for travelling in the opposite direction to most of his voters.
It’ll be easier for him to manage expectations on negotiations. Unless he promises to rejoin, or to negotiate a very specific outcome he can’t deliver, he can basically achieve a fair bit without much fanfare, and choose to announce the good bits once they’re done.
There's the potential for the EU to ask for too much in return in the mistaken belief that Starmer will just roll over.
I suspect he may just ask for bits and pieces from May's deal, which have the advantage of having already been negotiated e.g a phytosanitary agreement. It would be easy to ressurect them and an easy win. Six months, and Starmer can put a line under it and get on with his domestic agenda.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
Well it’s true, he didn’t prosecute her. Can’t say fairer than that. He also failed to prosecute Anders Breivik, and the DPP didn’t even open a file on Osama Bin Laden.
They literally didn’t prosecute Hitler. Literally.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
I’m pretty sure he’ll be more Brexity in office than remainers would like. What’s unclear far is whether that’s tactical, or an actual ideological journey. If it’s the latter he deserves congratulations for travelling in the opposite direction to most of his voters.
It’ll be easier for him to manage expectations on negotiations. Unless he promises to rejoin, or to negotiate a very specific outcome he can’t deliver, he can basically achieve a fair bit without much fanfare, and choose to announce the good bits once they’re done.
There's the potential for the EU to ask for too much in return in the mistaken belief that Starmer will just roll over.
The EU is likely to hugely overplay its hand.
It would be far better off treating Starmer as another British Prime Minister who will negotiate in Britain's national interest, but it probably won't.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
Well it’s true, he didn’t prosecute her. Can’t say fairer than that. He also failed to prosecute Anders Breivik, and the DPP didn’t even open a file on Osama Bin Laden.
They literally didn’t prosecute Hitler. Literally.
Or Satan.
Satan is surely arguable. All this wrath of god stuff seems very much like a legal case to me. No wonder God hasn't been seen since - he couldn't afford the bills.
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
The main problem is what the ECHR is rather than what it was envisaged to be. There should be no casewise appeal to the ECHR, although those same cases can and should be used in evidence to correct the paths of errant governments.
There has undoubtedly been mission creep on the part of the Court which has resulted in some fairly irrational decisions. It is also telling they have yet to rule on asylum seekers being handed over to Libyan pirates or coastguards to be enslaved by various EU countries.
But I remain of the view that this is so not worth it. To restart the process of defining the limits of our rights with a UK Bill of Rights would benefit no one other than HR lawyers.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
Well it’s true, he didn’t prosecute her. Can’t say fairer than that. He also failed to prosecute Anders Breivik, and the DPP didn’t even open a file on Osama Bin Laden.
They literally didn’t prosecute Hitler. Literally.
Or Satan.
Satan is surely arguable. All this wrath of god stuff seems very much like a legal case to me. No wonder God hasn't been seen since - he couldn't afford the bills.
He had no chance. After all, Satan has all the lawyers.
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
It's no lie. He didn't prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
More relevantly, the current DPP and government is yet to prosecute those administrators who thought that the consultants should be writing letters of apology and stop sending emails
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
The main problem is what the ECHR is rather than what it was envisaged to be. There should be no casewise appeal to the ECHR, although those same cases can and should be used in evidence to correct the paths of errant governments.
There has undoubtedly been mission creep on the part of the Court which has resulted in some fairly irrational decisions. It is also telling they have yet to rule on asylum seekers being handed over to Libyan pirates or coastguards to be enslaved by various EU countries.
But I remain of the view that this is so not worth it. To restart the process of defining the limits of our rights with a UK Bill of Rights would benefit no one other than HR lawyers.
100% we shouldn't leave the ECHR. The court itself needs some reform as hinted at above.
(I have a massive issue as to what and why people imagine there are 'rights', but that's a different argument.)
Meanwhile, Harry Brook showing England selectors why they were wrong to leave him out of the World Cup squad. 105 off 42 balls, out of a total of 158. Next highest scorer got 15. I know it's only the Hundred, but still...
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
I’m pretty sure he’ll be more Brexity in office than remainers would like. What’s unclear far is whether that’s tactical, or an actual ideological journey. If it’s the latter he deserves congratulations for travelling in the opposite direction to most of his voters.
It’ll be easier for him to manage expectations on negotiations. Unless he promises to rejoin, or to negotiate a very specific outcome he can’t deliver, he can basically achieve a fair bit without much fanfare, and choose to announce the good bits once they’re done.
There's the potential for the EU to ask for too much in return in the mistaken belief that Starmer will just roll over.
The EU is likely to hugely overplay its hand.
It would be far better off treating Starmer as another British Prime Minister who will negotiate in Britain's national interest, but it probably won't.
There’s plenty of bilateral contact with Labour already. I think there’ll be a window of opportunity. But the new government won’t get everything they want. It should start in my view with a general improvement in optics, including bringing in that annual summit that Sunak unaccountably turned down.
Then every year or so a little micro-win. Psychology tells us small regular bits of good news are better than one massive bit of good news.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
You can't transfer polling about a hypothetical policy in isolation to polling about a concrete proposal attached to a party platform.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
It is though a very handy set of polling results to give air cover for EFTA/EEA or other shuffles back closer to the old band. Not quite Robbie joining the take that reunion tour but at least doing a one off on Jools Holland.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the main issue for a Labour government in moving towards the EEA or similar would be managing public opinion rather than actually being able to negotiate conditions that they find acceptable. Starmer is on a journey and may be more Brexity in office than Remainers would like.
It's not really clear what the polling is measuring other than general Breget, frustration with the existing government and the poor economic situation - all of which overlap to some extent.
Referendum polling is highly unpredictable and very subject to change during a campaign on the specifics, which you would have thought people had learnt right now - and is exactly what's going on in Australia at the moment.
I think it's clear though that the Johnson-Frost deal and hard Brexit in general is doomed. I think we can probably conclude that the country wants a closer economic and trading relationship with the EU. Of course, what that closer is TBD.
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
On the basis of this polling most red wall seats would now be majority rejoin.
Since referendums are often a verdict on the government of the day rather than the substantive issue why wouldn’t you think referendum polling is the same?
The Tories must be getting desperate. So desperate, I expect to see the following headline in the DM or DT any day now: Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
It's no lie. He didn't prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
I didn't prosecute Lucy Letby when I was DPP either! And neither did you! 😀
We are gradually reaching the point where the political dividends of pivoting wholeheartedly back towards the EU, at the very least getting back inside the SM and restoring our FoM, will become impossible to ignore.
So again 37% still back Brexit, plus add what rejoin would require ie restoration of free movement and may require ie the Euro and economic policy and interest rates set in Frankfurt and those numbers would soon decline.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
If you want to add DKs that cuts the figures for those who oppose Brexit too.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
On the basis of this polling most red wall seats would now be majority rejoin.
Since referendums are often a verdict on the government of the day rather than the substantive issue why wouldn’t you think referendum polling is the same?
Your 'since' at the start there is doing a lot of work. Please elaborate.
Surely the current problem for the government is not the interim orders of the European Court of Human Rights but the decision of the Court of Appeal. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses that decision no one is going anywhere.
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
The main problem is what the ECHR is rather than what it was envisaged to be. There should be no casewise appeal to the ECHR, although those same cases can and should be used in evidence to correct the paths of errant governments.
There has undoubtedly been mission creep on the part of the Court which has resulted in some fairly irrational decisions. It is also telling they have yet to rule on asylum seekers being handed over to Libyan pirates or coastguards to be enslaved by various EU countries.
But I remain of the view that this is so not worth it. To restart the process of defining the limits of our rights with a UK Bill of Rights would benefit no one other than HR lawyers.
To be fair, the EU countries are not handing over African asylum seekers to the Libyan Coastguard to enslave.
They are paying the Libyans to do all the work - the catching, the imprisonment, the lot.
The market is waiting for closer relations, and business leaders/foreign investors would very much welcome a speech from Keir once he is PM declaring a close to the destructive policies of the last 7 years, and the opening of a new phase.
Comments
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Proverbs
The state Supreme Court has suspended the law license of an attorney for 2020 Republican gubernatorial candidate Loren Culp for abusing the legal system by making frivolous claims of widespread voter fraud in that election.
Stephen W. Pidgeon, the attorney who sued the state on Culp’s behalf, claiming the 2020 election was illegitimate, only to withdraw the case under threat of legal sanctions, will be prohibited from practicing law in the state for one year, according to the Supreme Court order. The suspension is effective Aug. 21.
In suspending Pidgeon, the state Supreme Court upheld charges by the state bar association’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which brought a formal complaint against him in December 2022.
A hearing officer in April of this year concluded that Pidgeon had violated rules of professional conduct for lawyers by knowingly “bringing a frivolous proceeding and asserting frivolous claims.”
Pidgeon’s actions caused injury “to the legal system and legal profession,” wrote the hearing officer, Randolph Petgrave III, adding that “aggravating factors” in the case included Pidgeon’s refusal to admit his “wrongful” conduct and his failure to respond to the bar association’s formal charges.
In a phone interview Monday, Pidgeon shrugged off the penalty, saying he has not been working as an attorney since the Culp lawsuit, and now lives in Alaska, where he gives religious talks. He voluntarily resigned from the state bar last year, records show. . . .
SSI - "religious talks"! Pity the fool who has this grifter for their spiritual guide!
https://deltapoll.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Deltapoll-230821_trackers.pdf
"We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/21/poll-labour-dips-to-just-29-national-act-on-course-for-win/
Still, no reason why IMHO we need an international Court on Justice instead of a domestic Supreme Court like other Parliamentary Common Law democracies.
As far as the ECtHR is concerned, it has failed to stand up to countries (like Russia) that remain signatories but disregard human rights.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4162874-a-third-of-adults-believe-covid-19-vaccines-caused-thousands-of-sudden-deaths-poll/
Thanks to grifters like RFK Jnr.
Survey shows devastating impact of Brexit on music sector, says Independent Society of Musicians
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/22/music-industry-workers-no-work-in-eu-since-brexit
The real definitions of 'less' and 'fewer' are well established, but some feeble minded grammarians have given up the fight and decided the less for fewer mistake is so common that it's now acceptable
It's like when people apostrophise singular nouns ending with -s without a following s
They write Balls' (which means belonging to the more than one Ball) rather than Balls's (belonging to Balls)
The AP style guide is the only one that accepts this grammatical abomination
My nomination for hardest sounding constituency name is Dagenham and Rainham; a pair of old school coppers who don't stick to the rulebook but get results.
I'm all for rules in language, but where it does not affect the understanding then insisting on a rule is just ridiculous, saying something is 'wrong' even though its meaning was perfectly understood.
I am fewer educated than you - doesn't make sense, obviously, so the words are not interchangable in this instance.
The Tories are headed for less than 50 seats - makes perfect sense, everyone could see what was meant.
With these matters the question should be what is the purpose of the grammatical rule? What benefit is there to insisting the wording was incorrect, even though I'd bet not a single reader of English did not know what was meant?
Seriously, I don't understand the anger people have about less/fewer, when there is no ambiguity of meaning. Why does this 'rule' matter in that instance?
How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not?
And that even ignores that languages change all the time, and no that doesn't mean that people can just make anything up and expect everyone else to go along with it - but if people do, in fact, go along with it on the whole, then insisting that some archaic thing is 'right' is just shouting at clouds level logic. How many words have meanings which have evolved over time, is that ok? If yes why is that ok, but evolving grammar is not? if no then you must be very furious a lot of the time.
If I think it looks ok I'll end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive as well, if I don't I won't.
Describing rules or definitions as 'real' in a sense that means they are fixed for all time is just weird, when we know for a fact that is not how languages work over time - we will have one particular change that we dislike and will resist, I'm sure I do too, and that resistance is fine, but neither is more real than the other, and if the changers win, that is now the 'real' rule too.
Edit: BTW, the context of your gag correction makes the point pretty well I think. All in good humour, but HYUFD made a point that everyone could see (and laugh at if they wanted), and the joke picks apart how he expressed it despite that clear understanding of his point, as if that was the problem.
Heading for a run, but really, grammar and language purists need to pick their battles, I'm not sure less/fewer is the hill to die on as the last bastion of 'real'ness.
The guy in the blue in the blue shirt was saying, “Ah yes, I’ve seen a few of these before”
The owner in the black T-shirt replied, “Oh.. This is the only one in the world”
So I’m pretty impressed by @Malmesbury recognising it so quickly
The yougov poll is 50% Rejoin, 30% stay out, 20% DK/WNV.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1691025544320524288?t=EaC4nBMFg494vMBnwjWL2Q&s=19
That 30% would be pretty equivalent to current Con + REFUK polling, so I think "Stay out" is not higher than Con vote.
It now commands a higher price because there's more competition for it. But you can only do so much with it (create the right culture and strategy) because a lot is structural and beyond their control.
Which is fair enough, until you think: Unless each word in that sentence has some sort of fixity, how can I know what Wittgenstein might mean? In which case he is wrong.
The answer is that there are far more playing in the health care market globally and there are many more positions, so the market is more liquid and shapable.
I can’t help but think the small boats issue has refocused the minds of those who saw immigration as a problem in 2016. Very clear delinking of migration from EU membership. It would he hard for Brexit (stay-out) campaigners to play on immigration in a future referendum. I think they could still go on sovereignty, and possibly payments still - “we can’t afford to spend another 350m a week when the NHS needs the money”, but that would stretch credibility a bit. The strongest argument for staying out, by far, would be “what’s done is done. Let’s not put ourselves through all that palaver again”.
EDIT I hope that clarifies what I mean.
There are similar polling numbers in support of the death penalty for child killers, but it's highly doubtful that a party would get a political dividend from saying they want to bring it back. It might even have the opposite effect.
Yougov has C2DEs split 40% to 44% on Brexit so it is the middle class ABC1s pushing it, 66% of whom say Brexit was wrong.
51% of over 65s also still think we were right to leave as do 65% of 2019 Conservative voters
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/kby5f0bevb/TheTimes_VI_Results_230818_W.pdf
Referendum polling is highly unpredictable and very subject to change during a campaign on the specifics, which you would have thought people had learnt right now - and is exactly what's going on in Australia at the moment.
More like the Vauxhall conference at the moment
You quote the figure w/o DK/WNV in your first sentence, yet figures with DK/WNV in your second.
Either one or the other please!
I don't correct anyone (except my Dad who used to correct me, and my nephew who needs my help given how bad my sister's grammar can be) (oh, and my Russian friend, because she wants me to, but never in front of anyone else)
But I'll argue all day for the upholding of linguistic and grammatical standards in our formal language
Less to mean fewer should have (informal) after it in the dictionary
Whilst it is true that the CA decision was based fairly heavily upon the Convention it is not easy to conceive of a UK bill of rights that might be construed differently.
The Tories would be better advised to drop this idiocy and it’s architect.
But then again, Brexit wasn't a serious policy either.
Exclusive: Starmer failed to prosecute Lucy Letby when he was DPP.
The Tories would of course love Starmer to fight a general election on Brexit, that automatically brings most of the RefUK vote back in their column and gives Sunak a good chance of holding most of the redwall seats too.
Yes it might help the LDs gain Tory seats in the bluewall but that doesn't do much for Starmer's prospects of a majority does it!
In fact, it would probably accelerate erosion of the FTSE100 and our services sector.
My favourite is https://www.bobpetersenengineering.co.uk/petersen-27-litre-meteor
Or Satan.
It would be far better off treating Starmer as another British Prime Minister who will negotiate in Britain's national interest, but it probably won't.
But I remain of the view that this is so not worth it. To restart the process of defining the limits of our rights with a UK Bill of Rights would benefit no one other than HR lawyers.
How many people are there?
How much sugar do you want?
But why not with:
How many fewer people are there?
How much less sugar do you want?
I think today's poll is an outlier but I should think the chances of another outlier before the GE are quite high.
(I have a massive issue as to what and why people imagine there are 'rights', but that's a different argument.)
Then every year or so a little micro-win. Psychology tells us small regular bits of good news are better than one massive bit of good news.
Of course, what that closer is TBD.
They are paying the Libyans to do all the work - the catching, the imprisonment, the lot.