Looks like Tamworth is going to be on the 19th October, same day as Mid Beds. I guess Labour will have to divert some resources to Tamworth, the Lib Dems will presumably continue to throw everything at Mid Beds. Tamworth is very interesting looks of commuter type estates, loads of countryside and of course on the east side of the town loads of what were once Council estates, which I well remember from my working in the town for the Youth Offending Service.
Tamworth is going to be a REAL test for this Labour Party. This is an unambiguously Cons v Lab fight in a tory held north-Midlands seat.
They need a 21% swing. It's a hell of an ask but if they're really serious about winning an overall majority then with c. 12 months to go it's the kind of marker they now should be setting.
I agree except for the description of north-Midlands. This is a central-Midlands seat.
The only way you really police it, is by having a police car on main roads, either able to view the charging camera feed or with similar equipment on board. Then the car is confiscated, and either crushed or auctioned by the police.
That needs a change of legislation as if they seize a vehicle now you just pay 200 quid to get it back. It's very rarely done IMO&E. I mean, if I haven't had a car seized then who the fuck has?
Yes, the legislation need to be that a car with a fake plate (that doesn’t match the VIN) gets confiscated by the State. For doctored plates (matches VIN but isn’t correct), then a large fine is appropriate. Large enough to expect them to be in the London ULEZ every day for a year, perhaps £10k?
Genuine question as someone who has lived in the country a lot of my life, if your number plate is covered with sufficient mud (including boot and bonnet so as not to look too obvious) are you likely to be busted?
I know that you're supposed to keep number plates clean and clear but that's not my question, which is whether you are really likely to be busted? Or, if you're pulled over (surely pretty unlikely) just told to get a car wash?
If your car is just muddy in general, a police officer might pull you over and order to you clean lights and number plates etc. on the spot. If your plate is covered in mud but the rest of your car is clean, you can be reported for obscuring it, and have to argue to the magistrates.
I used to drive 50k miles a year in the UK, and in wintry weather I’d make a point of cleaning lights and plates at every stop. Don’t give them an excuse to pull you over!
Interesting thing about this by-election: the Conservatives have a candidate there for the GE called Eddie Hughes. Unhelpfully he is the current MP for Walsall North.
They won’t want a by-election there so they’ll have to find a candidate happy to serve as a kind of interim MP
I don't think that's tenable. Hughes will essentially need to say that, if the Conservative candidate is elected, he'll step aside and let them do it at the General Election.
That's annoying for Hughes, but no other outcome is at all credible for the Conservatives. You simply can't run a campaign promising "I'll keep the seat warm for Eddie!" - it's stupid.
Or the Tories can let Hughes stand.
He only has to resign Walsall N if he wins aiui, so the maximum jeopardy for the whole process is 1 Tory seat.
He's already said he won't be standing in the by-election.
No serious candidate is going to want to fight a by-election where if they pull off a miraculous win they'd have to stand down about 12 months later. Bit of a farce from the Tories.
If they don't sort this farce out it's almost going to look as if they've thrown in the towel.
c. 13 months max to the GE and we now have 2 Cons held by-elections. If they go badly for the tories it adds to the ongoing meme that we're in the last days of Conservative rule (for now).
Tamworth is going to be a REAL test for this Labour Party. This is an unambiguously Cons v Lab fight in a tory held north-Midlands seat.
They need a 21% swing. It's a hell of an ask but if they're really serious about winning an overall majority then with c. 12 months to go it's the kind of marker they now should be setting.
I agree except for the description of north-Midlands. This is a central-Midlands seat.
It's a good job you didn't see my early iteration then where I described it as a 'northern seat'
Oh, I see Chris Pincher has resigned. Quelle dommage!
Wonder what will happen to his seat. Will anyone pinch it, d'ya think?
It will be interesting to see the timings for this - I believe it's essentially the Cnservatives who'd move the writ by convention in a held seat.
The obvious choice is 19 October to go with Mid Beds, simply to have the bad news (assuming it is bad news) on one day.
However, there might be a case for a different date as the red-on-gold tussle in Mid Beds is quite helpful for the blues, and having Tamworth on the same day does tend to help the Lib Dems by diverting Labour resource (Lib Dems clearly won't go all out for Tamworth, but Labour clearly will).
The two seats aren't all that far apart (about 80 miles) so it's a choice as to which to go to for a lot of activists (in a way which it isn't for Rutherglen - there might be a few Labour activists mulling whether to go to Rutherglen or Beds but for most the choice is pretty clear based on convenience).
57 miles in a straight line from the closest points of each constituency.
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
Oh, I see Chris Pincher has resigned. Quelle dommage!
Wonder what will happen to his seat. Will anyone pinch it, d'ya think?
It will be interesting to see the timings for this - I believe it's essentially the Cnservatives who'd move the writ by convention in a held seat.
The obvious choice is 19 October to go with Mid Beds, simply to have the bad news (assuming it is bad news) on one day.
However, there might be a case for a different date as the red-on-gold tussle in Mid Beds is quite helpful for the blues, and having Tamworth on the same day does tend to help the Lib Dems by diverting Labour resource (Lib Dems clearly won't go all out for Tamworth, but Labour clearly will).
The two seats aren't all that far apart (about 80 miles) so it's a choice as to which to go to for a lot of activists (in a way which it isn't for Rutherglen - there might be a few Labour activists mulling whether to go to Rutherglen or Beds but for most the choice is pretty clear based on convenience).
57 miles in a straight line from the closest points of each constituency.
Will not satisfy some of the Tories here who want lots of house building, and seems to be aiming at local soft LDs and conservation Tories (who all hate the local plan). Whilst he likes to blame the local LDs for the local plan demanding building on the green belt, he fails to mention that the local Tories had a similar plan when they were in charge of the council, and that this is due to mandates from the Westminster government. Also interesting connections with Cameron and Clegg. Is this what Cameroonian Leavers could look like?
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
Tamworth is going to be a REAL test for this Labour Party. This is an unambiguously Cons v Lab fight in a tory held north-Midlands seat.
They need a 21% swing. It's a hell of an ask but if they're really serious about winning an overall majority then with c. 12 months to go it's the kind of marker they now should be setting.
I agree except for the description of north-Midlands. This is a central-Midlands seat.
So Mid-Midlands then. Not North Midlands. As distinct from the South North, which is totally different to both the North Midlands and the Mid North. Although more similar to the East Mid-Midlands and the West Mid-Midlands.
DoT needs to move over to a stamped plate system as soon as possible, given all of the traffic schemes that are using plate reading cameras to hand out fines.
Stamped plates are easy to 3D print.
But is that still harder, in that 3d printers are not an every household item, to current methods? Even a little harder would reduce the amount.
Buy a printer. Charge £50 a plate you fake. Make your money back in a few days….
It'd be hard, but not impossible, to 3D print a current UK reg plate with any authenticity. You'd probably have to override the printer firmware with Klipper to get a reasonable printing time and be an expert at PLA ironing to get a smooth finish.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
It's all right to have a temporary MP with no commitment to Tamworth and who turns back into a pumpkin after 12 months. Labour won't use that against them. Well, I'm almost sure they won't.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Tamworth is going to be a REAL test for this Labour Party. This is an unambiguously Cons v Lab fight in a tory held north-Midlands seat.
They need a 21% swing. It's a hell of an ask but if they're really serious about winning an overall majority then with c. 12 months to go it's the kind of marker they now should be setting.
I agree except for the description of north-Midlands. This is a central-Midlands seat.
So Mid-Midlands then. Not North Midlands. As distinct from the South North, which is totally different to both the North Midlands and the Mid North. Although more similar to the East Mid-Midlands and the West Mid-Midlands.
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Well, thank goodness he wasn't on duty.
Unbelievable. Hackbridge just isn't that sort of place.
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
It must be said, I do wonder when a future government will finally accept moving out of Westminster. The place is falling down and really should be turned into a museum open to the public. It will give the party who does it the opportunity to move it somewhere outside of London, as well, which could be interesting.
Imagine, a new building that is set up for electronic voting and none of this walking through doors nonsense. I know the Tories and the traditionalists will hate it, and it might change the nature of parliament / the speaker and such - but it's been a long time coming. Put it in Manchester or Birmingham, separate out our politics a bit across the country so it's not so London centric and boom - big impact with minimal constitutional fuckery.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Well, thank goodness he wasn't on duty.
Unbelievable. Hackbridge just isn't that sort of place.
Hackbridge was one of the first stations I visited during season 1994/5 by virtue of it being at the Zone 4 boundary (like Newbury Park once was). I had a Zones 1 to 4 Season back then, you see
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Well, thank goodness he wasn't on duty.
Unbelievable. Hackbridge just isn't that sort of place.
Where the hell is Hackbridge? I've never heard of it. South West London where exactly.
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
It must be said, I do wonder when a future government will finally accept moving out of Westminster. The place is falling down and really should be turned into a museum open to the public. It will give the party who does it the opportunity to move it somewhere outside of London, as well, which could be interesting.
Imagine, a new building that is set up for electronic voting and none of this walking through doors nonsense. I know the Tories and the traditionalists will hate it, and it might change the nature of parliament / the speaker and such - but it's been a long time coming. Put it in Manchester or Birmingham, separate out our politics a bit across the country so it's not so London centric and boom - big impact with minimal constitutional fuckery.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
According to Wikipedia he's "Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Rough Sleeping".
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
According to Wikipedia he's "Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Rough Sleeping".
Ironic then that he will be made homeless through no fault of his own.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
Lab 8128 (40.2%) Con 8091 (40.0%) Ind 2786 (13.8%) LD 763 (3.8%) Ref/UKIP 245 (1.2%) Grn 215 (1.1%)
In terms of contesting wards, Con got 1 small ward unopposed, Lab stood aside for a winning LD in one slightly larger ward. I figure they too balance.
This probably indicates a Labour gain at a parliamentary by-election since some local Tory candidates will be getting a personal vote that won't help the party at the by-election.
If somebody with examples and a clear explanation can actually explain what MrEd did I am all ears. But wanting him gone because you don't like his political views is not fair.
He was a Trumper. Ok apart from that but what a 'that' that is. Why so hot on him? You raise it a lot.
On which subject - banning - I can report to the Board that @isam contacted me about our bet and all is cleared up there.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
Lab 8128 (40.2%) Con 8091 (40.0%) Ind 2786 (13.8%) LD 763 (3.8%) Ref/UKIP 245 (1.2%) Grn 215 (1.1%)
In terms of contesting wards, Con got 1 small ward unopposed, Lab stood aside for a winning LD in one slightly larger ward. I figure they too balance.
This probably indicates a Labour gain at a parliamentary by-election since some local Tory candidates will be getting a personal vote that won't help the party at the by-election.
Yes, I think so. Batley & Spen had a Con lead of 30 odd votes at the locals preceding the by-election there, and Labour came home by 300, notwithstanding Galloway. This is a very similar starting position.
Tamworth is going to be a REAL test for this Labour Party. This is an unambiguously Cons v Lab fight in a tory held north-Midlands seat.
They need a 21% swing. It's a hell of an ask but if they're really serious about winning an overall majority then with c. 12 months to go it's the kind of marker they now should be setting.
I agree except for the description of north-Midlands. This is a central-Midlands seat.
So Mid-Midlands then. Not North Midlands. As distinct from the South North, which is totally different to both the North Midlands and the Mid North. Although more similar to the East Mid-Midlands and the West Mid-Midlands.
Pause
So where is Norsex again?
Norsex is opposite electronics gate to Sex?
I thought it was the non-gender-specific term for Norse peoples, replacing Norseo and Norsea
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
It must be said, I do wonder when a future government will finally accept moving out of Westminster. The place is falling down and really should be turned into a museum open to the public. It will give the party who does it the opportunity to move it somewhere outside of London, as well, which could be interesting.
Imagine, a new building that is set up for electronic voting and none of this walking through doors nonsense. I know the Tories and the traditionalists will hate it, and it might change the nature of parliament / the speaker and such - but it's been a long time coming. Put it in Manchester or Birmingham, separate out our politics a bit across the country so it's not so London centric and boom - big impact with minimal constitutional fuckery.
Or Edinburgh or Cardiff.
Edinburgh already has one. But it's occupied already. But there is another, converted for Parliamentarian use but rejected by NuLab as pandering to the Nationalists, because it was on the high hill rather than the sump of the Old Town. Helpfully vacant and available ...
If somebody with examples and a clear explanation can actually explain what MrEd did I am all ears. But wanting him gone because you don't like his political views is not fair.
He was a Trumper. Ok apart from that but what a 'that' that is. Why so hot on him? You raise it a lot.
On which subject - banning - I can report to the Board that @isam contacted me about our bet and all is cleared up there.
How could Isam contact you given that he is banned?
Edit: he's been reinstated - I didn't know - great news. About time.
Interesting for the future of the UK that the same poll shows a likely SNP/GREEN majority at HOLYROOD of 11.
Does it? The latest R&W figures for Holyrood indicates 25% SNP and 14% Green on the Regional List (so combined 39%, well down on the 48% combined in 2021), with Labour leading the Regional List on 30%. The SNP still lead in the constituency vote with 39% versus 30% for Labour, and that may yield quite a lot of seats - but that lead is miles down on the 26% lead at the last Scottish elections.
I've not done the maths but are you sure you're looking at the same poll, because there is no chance of those numbers delivering an SNP/Green majority.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
It must be said, I do wonder when a future government will finally accept moving out of Westminster. The place is falling down and really should be turned into a museum open to the public. It will give the party who does it the opportunity to move it somewhere outside of London, as well, which could be interesting.
Imagine, a new building that is set up for electronic voting and none of this walking through doors nonsense. I know the Tories and the traditionalists will hate it, and it might change the nature of parliament / the speaker and such - but it's been a long time coming. Put it in Manchester or Birmingham, separate out our politics a bit across the country so it's not so London centric and boom - big impact with minimal constitutional fuckery.
No thanks. Why make such a pointless change? It won't save any money as Houses of Parliament will still have to be maintained. It would just be vast additional pointless cost to satisfy those who believe that anything old must, inherently, be bad.
If somebody with examples and a clear explanation can actually explain what MrEd did I am all ears. But wanting him gone because you don't like his political views is not fair.
He was a Trumper. Ok apart from that but what a 'that' that is. Why so hot on him? You raise it a lot.
On which subject - banning - I can report to the Board that @isam contacted me about our bet and all is cleared up there.
How could Isam contact you given that he is banned?
Edit: he's been reinstated - I didn't know - great news. About time.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
It’s all vaguely reminiscent of the old joke about the physiatrists and the light bulb.
Informant: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Collector: I don’t know, how many?
Informant: One, but the light has to want to change.
The helicopter operators, and the air traffic controllers, to bring up two subjects yesterday, they want to change, to see continuous improvement in how they operate.
But how much does the NHS or the police, as organisations, actually want to change?
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
Well done to the student nurse. Should be an award for that and for other whistle-blowers where wrongdoing is found (and ensure protection for all).
Interesting that this was even possible though. I know of one hospital where every pharmaceutical is tracked (at the patient level) electronically and excessive use would (or at least, could - I don't know what thresholds they use, but it checks e.g. overdose, contra-indications) be picked up automatically. While since I worked with them, so I don't know what it does on ward level, e.g. if you - in the recording system - spread the excess around.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
It’s all vaguely reminiscent of the old joke about the physiatrists and the light bulb.
Informant: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Collector: I don’t know, how many?
Informant: One, but the light has to want to change.
The helicopter operators, and the air traffic controllers, to bring up two subjects yesterday, they want to change, to see continuous improvement in how they operate.
But how much does the NHS or the police, as organisations, actually want to change?
There is a movement in some areas of healthcare to mimic airlines - I've seen plenty of slides at conferences about air accident fatality rates over time compared to healthcare fatality rates. It needs automation of detection of unusual patterns etc. Things like NEWS* and the pharma tracking system I mentioned come out of that kind of mindset (driver there was errors in prescribing and 'lost' medications).
As we saw with Letby though, the complainants are not always believed, which discourages others from raising concerns, particularly without direct evidence.
*disclaimer of personal interest - I had some involvement in NEWS
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
Isn't it possible to both root out rapists and to be a diversity positive police force, or do you think they can only do one or the other?
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
Yes; in general people are terrible at assessing risk and don't approach it from a perspective of assessing risks impartially and statistically in each area of their life. We overestimate risks where the events are salient and big news, and we underestimate where we have a perception of "being in control".
You can see this also in RAIB investigation reports following rail accidents of the "car drove onto level crossing when it should not have" variety -- the recommendations tend to suggest expensive purely rail-side mitigations such as closing level crossings or changing procedures, and ignore that the underlying problem is that the road system is pretty unsafe and spending money on that side would be a rather better return in lives saved per million quid spent, and would incidentally reduce the number of road vehicle accidents that happen to involve a railway...
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
Well done to the student nurse. Should be an award for that and for other whistle-blowers where wrongdoing is found (and ensure protection for all).
Interesting that this was even possible though. I know of one hospital where every pharmaceutical is tracked (at the patient level) electronically and excessive use would (or at least, could - I don't know what thresholds they use, but it checks e.g. overdose, contra-indications) be picked up automatically. While since I worked with them, so I don't know what it does on ward level, e.g. if you - in the recording system - spread the excess around.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
Reality is Hughes's chicken run is screwed and he needs to find another seat....
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
Isn't it possible to both root out rapists and to be a diversity positive police force, or do you think they can only do one or the other?
Given that they seem to be incapable of patting their head and rubbing their stomach at the same time, I’d argue that catching their own rapists should be the higher priority.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
Well, at least recruitment should start getting a bit easier for the Met now that the Wagner Group has gone into decline. Should be plenty of their former employees looking for suitable work.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
Well done to the student nurse. Should be an award for that and for other whistle-blowers where wrongdoing is found (and ensure protection for all).
Interesting that this was even possible though. I know of one hospital where every pharmaceutical is tracked (at the patient level) electronically and excessive use would (or at least, could - I don't know what thresholds they use, but it checks e.g. overdose, contra-indications) be picked up automatically. While since I worked with them, so I don't know what it does on ward level, e.g. if you - in the recording system - spread the excess around.
We're these legitimate prescriptions, or Letby like ones?
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
Isn't it possible to both root out rapists and to be a diversity positive police force, or do you think they can only do one or the other?
Given that they seem to be incapable of patting their head and rubbing their stomach at the same time, I’d argue that catching their own rapists should be the higher priority.
So you accept that both can be done, as there is clearly more than a single priority on their list.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
Reality is Hughes's chicken run is screwed and he needs to find another seat....
Not nessicarily. If Lab wins, Hughes can fight it at the GE.
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
Yes; in general people are terrible at assessing risk and don't approach it from a perspective of assessing risks impartially and statistically in each area of their life. We overestimate risks where the events are salient and big news, and we underestimate where we have a perception of "being in control".
You can see this also in RAIB investigation reports following rail accidents of the "car drove onto level crossing when it should not have" variety -- the recommendations tend to suggest expensive purely rail-side mitigations such as closing level crossings or changing procedures, and ignore that the underlying problem is that the road system is pretty unsafe and spending money on that side would be a rather better return in lives saved per million quid spent, and would incidentally reduce the number of road vehicle accidents that happen to involve a railway...
But that would require a local council to spend money so where would the money come from...
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
Well done to the student nurse. Should be an award for that and for other whistle-blowers where wrongdoing is found (and ensure protection for all).
Interesting that this was even possible though. I know of one hospital where every pharmaceutical is tracked (at the patient level) electronically and excessive use would (or at least, could - I don't know what thresholds they use, but it checks e.g. overdose, contra-indications) be picked up automatically. While since I worked with them, so I don't know what it does on ward level, e.g. if you - in the recording system - spread the excess around.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
Well done to the student nurse. Should be an award for that and for other whistle-blowers where wrongdoing is found (and ensure protection for all).
Interesting that this was even possible though. I know of one hospital where every pharmaceutical is tracked (at the patient level) electronically and excessive use would (or at least, could - I don't know what thresholds they use, but it checks e.g. overdose, contra-indications) be picked up automatically. While since I worked with them, so I don't know what it does on ward level, e.g. if you - in the recording system - spread the excess around.
We're these legitimate prescriptions, or Letby like ones?
In the reported case? No idea. How does it work for sedatives - do they have to be requested per patient or would some wards just have stock that they administer as they see fit?
In the hospital I mentioned, they did uncover some theft/fraud, but the main point was for legit things that never got administered for various reasons, catching some errors automatically, better stock control and ordering etc.
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
It’s all vaguely reminiscent of the old joke about the physiatrists and the light bulb.
Informant: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Collector: I don’t know, how many?
Informant: One, but the light has to want to change.
The helicopter operators, and the air traffic controllers, to bring up two subjects yesterday, they want to change, to see continuous improvement in how they operate.
But how much does the NHS or the police, as organisations, actually want to change?
There is a movement in some areas of healthcare to mimic airlines - I've seen plenty of slides at conferences about air accident fatality rates over time compared to healthcare fatality rates. It needs automation of detection of unusual patterns etc. Things like NEWS* and the pharma tracking system I mentioned come out of that kind of mindset (driver there was errors in prescribing and 'lost' medications).
As we saw with Letby though, the complainants are not always believed, which discourages others from raising concerns, particularly without direct evidence.
*disclaimer of personal interest - I had some involvement in NEWS
However, we’re dealing with a very technological, well regulated, and relatively new industry, where a no-blame ‘just’ culture has been embedded for decades, and where not just accidents but relatively minor incidents get reported, so that everyone can learn from everyone else’s bad day at work.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
I do wonder, particularly in the face of a number of cases like this, whether Braverman actually believes the shite she spouts, or is just indulging in pitiful look squirrellery.
Great to see that PB Tories have finally caught up with the rest of us over the deep dodginess of the constabulary, mind. May spread to other areas..
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
The NHS is sacrosanct. They don't want randoms sticking their noses into what's actually going on.
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
Well done to the student nurse. Should be an award for that and for other whistle-blowers where wrongdoing is found (and ensure protection for all).
Interesting that this was even possible though. I know of one hospital where every pharmaceutical is tracked (at the patient level) electronically and excessive use would (or at least, could - I don't know what thresholds they use, but it checks e.g. overdose, contra-indications) be picked up automatically. While since I worked with them, so I don't know what it does on ward level, e.g. if you - in the recording system - spread the excess around.
We're these legitimate prescriptions, or Letby like ones?
In the reported case? No idea. How does it work for sedatives - do they have to be requested per patient or would some wards just have stock that they administer as they see fit?
In the hospital I mentioned, they did uncover some theft/fraud, but the main point was for legit things that never got administered for various reasons, catching some errors automatically, better stock control and ordering etc.
They are prescription only, and potentially drugs of abuse.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
Well, at least recruitment should start getting a bit easier for the Met now that the Wagner Group has gone into decline. Should be plenty of their former employees looking for suitable work.
I thought Wagner Group had high standards for the rapists, thieves, murders and torturers they employ?
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Well, thank goodness he wasn't on duty.
Unbelievable. Hackbridge just isn't that sort of place.
Where the hell is Hackbridge? I've never heard of it. South West London where exactly.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Well, thank goodness he wasn't on duty.
Unbelievable. Hackbridge just isn't that sort of place.
Where the hell is Hackbridge? I've never heard of it. South West London where exactly.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
Reality is Hughes's chicken run is screwed and he needs to find another seat....
In his defence I think his seat is being abolished, so it's an enforced chicken run.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
Well, thank goodness he wasn't on duty.
Unbelievable. Hackbridge just isn't that sort of place.
Where the hell is Hackbridge? I've never heard of it. South West London where exactly.
Nice bit of Croydon.
I thought it was Carshalton.
South of the river, mate. One bit of tundra much the same as the rest.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
He's said that (a) he won't fight the by-election, and (b) he will be the candidate at the general election, as selected.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
He's said that (a) he won't fight the by-election, and (b) he will be the candidate at the general election, as selected.
Tory central office need to say that that's not an option in the event that someone else wins the seat.
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
He's said that (a) he won't fight the by-election, and (b) he will be the candidate at the general election, as selected.
I'm sure he has, but central office can decide otherwise.
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
It must be said, I do wonder when a future government will finally accept moving out of Westminster. The place is falling down and really should be turned into a museum open to the public. It will give the party who does it the opportunity to move it somewhere outside of London, as well, which could be interesting.
Imagine, a new building that is set up for electronic voting and none of this walking through doors nonsense. I know the Tories and the traditionalists will hate it, and it might change the nature of parliament / the speaker and such - but it's been a long time coming. Put it in Manchester or Birmingham, separate out our politics a bit across the country so it's not so London centric and boom - big impact with minimal constitutional fuckery.
No thanks. Why make such a pointless change? It won't save any money as Houses of Parliament will still have to be maintained. It would just be vast additional pointless cost to satisfy those who believe that anything old must, inherently, be bad.
Part of my reasoning is, indeed, about how I don't think anything old must be bad, and want more people to experience it. I quite like the architecture of the building itself, and the inside is more modern than the outside looks. But also, I think we need to modernise our politics, and part of that will necessitate no more voting via walking through doors and standing swords width apart, and London shouldn't be the financial centre, the media centre, the cultural centre and the political centre of the country.
I also think that a point should come where you go "this really should belong to the people of the UK" and turning it into a museum about British politics would be a great way to do that.
Interesting thing about this by-election: the Conservatives have a candidate there for the GE called Eddie Hughes. Unhelpfully he is the current MP for Walsall North.
They won’t want a by-election there so they’ll have to find a candidate happy to serve as a kind of interim MP
It’s a weird situation with the boundary changes. Can they find a local activist willing to do the job for a year but then walk away?
The boundary changes are very slight. It's going to be about 97% the same.
So, how many injuries is an acceptable number to have before doing anything?
Greater than zero.
I was peripherally involved in the design of NICE, which partly has to decide what treatments can be paid for on the NHS, and hence has to weigh up "small chance of saving some life" against "large chance of making life slightly better for many people" within any budgetary level. IIRC the decision was to set a price of £20,000 (I believe it's now about £30K?) for "one year of satisfactory life", so if drug A would make you on average live a year longer without a lot of pain and side-effects, it would be approved if it cost less than £20K/year. One that on average improved life a bit for 3 months and only cost £10K probably wouldn't.
A lot of people find this chilling - "You can't measure the cost of a life!" - but I think you really have to, no matter how generous or parsimonious your budget. Deciding on the size of the budget is a quite different issue, and much more about political priorities - that's the sort of thing that keeps me interested in politics.
Absolutley, Nick.
You not only can measure the cost of a life, you have to. I'm glad I don't have to do it myself, it would keep me awake nights, but I acknowledge and admire those that do. It is essentially what good government is about.
Take speed limits, for example, since the topic has cropped up here. There are about 1,500 deaths on our roads each year now (way down on what it was when I passed my test in 1966, though these facts are not necessarily linked) and we could easily get that down to a few dozen if we reduce the speed limit to 5mph. Such a reductio ad absurdum makes the point.
Somebody has to decide where to draw the line, which implies evaluation of the cost of a life. Tough, but somebody really has to do it.
I always remember that the day of the Hatfield Train Crash, which killed 4 people, a family of 4 were killed in a head on collission on the Newark Bypass. This made me go and look at the relative 'value per human life saved' numbers.
In 2000 this was aproximately £3 million person on the railways and £500,000 per person on the roads.
Thanks Richard.
I suspect I'm being dumb but could you briefly explain how such a differential arises?
I really don't know. I suspect it is because there is (or maybe was) no standardised system of cost/benefit analysis across Government. So one department or organisation is using one value whilst another uses a completely different one.
Intrestingly if you google for similar numbers today you get a standardised £1.8 million so maybe someone finally got around to sorting it out.
This report (PDF) is interesting. Pushes a particular argument, but provides some useful background. Has the £1.8M figure, so may be the one you were looking at for more recent figures, Richard.
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road For trains, we don't trust the idiots driving if they start having crashes.
And as for dodgy concrete, it would take just one infant fatality to bring the Government down.
It must be said, I do wonder when a future government will finally accept moving out of Westminster. The place is falling down and really should be turned into a museum open to the public. It will give the party who does it the opportunity to move it somewhere outside of London, as well, which could be interesting.
Imagine, a new building that is set up for electronic voting and none of this walking through doors nonsense. I know the Tories and the traditionalists will hate it, and it might change the nature of parliament / the speaker and such - but it's been a long time coming. Put it in Manchester or Birmingham, separate out our politics a bit across the country so it's not so London centric and boom - big impact with minimal constitutional fuckery.
No thanks. Why make such a pointless change? It won't save any money as Houses of Parliament will still have to be maintained. It would just be vast additional pointless cost to satisfy those who believe that anything old must, inherently, be bad.
Part of my reasoning is, indeed, about how I don't think anything old must be bad, and want more people to experience it. I quite like the architecture of the building itself, and the inside is more modern than the outside looks. But also, I think we need to modernise our politics, and part of that will necessitate no more voting via walking through doors and standing swords width apart, and London shouldn't be the financial centre, the media centre, the cultural centre and the political centre of the country.
I also think that a point should come where you go "this really should belong to the people of the UK" and turning it into a museum about British politics would be a great way to do that.
Stick them in an office block in Gatesheed or somewhere.
Interesting thing about this by-election: the Conservatives have a candidate there for the GE called Eddie Hughes. Unhelpfully he is the current MP for Walsall North.
They won’t want a by-election there so they’ll have to find a candidate happy to serve as a kind of interim MP
It’s a weird situation with the boundary changes. Can they find a local activist willing to do the job for a year but then walk away?
The boundary changes are very slight. It's going to be about 97% the same.
So Hughes’s seat close by is being abolished, and Pincher was already standing down?
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
He's said that (a) he won't fight the by-election, and (b) he will be the candidate at the general election, as selected.
Tory central office need to say that that's not an option in the event that someone else wins the seat.
Maybe he’s talked to Tory central office and they’ve resolved the problem by deciding to just not stand anyone in the by-election. They’re going to lose anyway, so why bother?
'A spokesperson for the RSE told the Herald: “Neil Oliver was elected to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2020. During his time as a fellow did not take part in any RSE business.
“In discussion with Mr Oliver, he understood that his current views on various matters, widely aired on television, put him at odds with scientific and broader academic learning within the Society.
"Following discussions, he offered to resign his association with the RSE with immediate effect.”'
Wonder if it's to do with this vaccine stuff we've all heard about?
Interesting thing about this by-election: the Conservatives have a candidate there for the GE called Eddie Hughes. Unhelpfully he is the current MP for Walsall North.
They won’t want a by-election there so they’ll have to find a candidate happy to serve as a kind of interim MP
It’s a weird situation with the boundary changes. Can they find a local activist willing to do the job for a year but then walk away?
The boundary changes are very slight. It's going to be about 97% the same.
So Hughes’s seat close by is being abolished, and Pincher was already standing down?
Interesting for the future of the UK that the same poll shows a likely SNP/GREEN majority at HOLYROOD of 11.
Does it? The latest R&W figures for Holyrood indicates 25% SNP and 14% Green on the Regional List (so combined 39%, well down on the 48% combined in 2021), with Labour leading the Regional List on 30%. The SNP still lead in the constituency vote with 39% versus 30% for Labour, and that may yield quite a lot of seats - but that lead is miles down on the 26% lead at the last Scottish elections.
I've not done the maths but are you sure you're looking at the same poll, because there is no chance of those numbers delivering an SNP/Green majority.
That would lead to a Lab/LibDem admin with Tories supporting on a case by case basis. There would be no repeat of SNP minority as per 2007 when Salmond became FM, even if they are the largest party.
Interesting thing about this by-election: the Conservatives have a candidate there for the GE called Eddie Hughes. Unhelpfully he is the current MP for Walsall North.
They won’t want a by-election there so they’ll have to find a candidate happy to serve as a kind of interim MP
It’s a weird situation with the boundary changes. Can they find a local activist willing to do the job for a year but then walk away?
The boundary changes are very slight. It's going to be about 97% the same.
So Hughes’s seat close by is being abolished, and Pincher was already standing down?
Yes - it's Walsall North that is being chopped up. But none of it at all goes into Tamworth, which is changing only slightly.
As I was escorted around the Pomona cider brewery (near Bromyard) I had an epiphany from my Herefordshire childhood. You used to be able - aged 15 - to walk into one of the rougher but authentic pubs in Hereford and get a pint of “rough cider” - ie raw farmyard cider drawn straight from the barrel. The barrel which sat on the bar
Incredible in retrospect. Now the world - and the cider - is pasteurised
"So who did the good Tories of the Tamworth Association select to replace Pincher? Eddie Hughes, the incumbent MP for Walsall North. That selection raised the possibility of a scenario whereby Hughes won the Tamworth by-election but then triggered a second contest in his current, more marginal, constituency. To avoid this outcome, the Tamworth Tories look likely to select a second candidate to fight the looming by-election contest, with Hughes still expected to fight the general next year."
Yes it doesn't exactly help their predicament. In fact it's ludicrous isn't it? It means people would be voting for a one-off tory who is then going to have to stand down in probably less than 12 months.
Is the North Walsall MP a real loss? I have never heard of him.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
In practice, I agree that HAS to be the outcome for the Conservatives. It'd be nuts to have a candidate explicitly standing as Eddie Hughes' seat-warmer.
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
I'd have thought it's quite simple. Hughes is the candidate for the seat at the next election (albeit on slightly different boundaries, but I don't think that's an issue). Therefore, he should have the right to stand as the candidate in the by election. If he wins, then there's a by election in his existing constituency (which is changing quite a bit next time) and Labour probably win it. If he loses Tamworth, he keeps his current seat and is still the candidate in Tamworth next time (which he probably wins).
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
He's said that (a) he won't fight the by-election, and (b) he will be the candidate at the general election, as selected.
Tory central office need to say that that's not an option in the event that someone else wins the seat.
Maybe he’s talked to Tory central office and they’ve resolved the problem by deciding to just not stand anyone in the by-election. They’re going to lose anyway, so why bother?
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
Isn't it possible to both root out rapists and to be a diversity positive police force, or do you think they can only do one or the other?
I do think it possible, but I think the prioritising of image and box ticking exercises over meaningful change and intolerance of a rancid culture is pretty clear.
It's not that a flag or whatever causes things, but that the forces don't care about hard decisions of reform, and focus more on trivial actions because that's easy.
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
The Met. That’s a shock !!
I know. Who’d have thought there would be (alleged) rapists in the Met?
Yet Braverman thinks it is rainbow flags causing loss of public confidence in the Met.
Well the senior Met officers, and the mayor, seem to think that waving rainbow flags is more important than rooting out the rapists in their own organisation, so why would the HS want to disagree?
Isn't it possible to both root out rapists and to be a diversity positive police force, or do you think they can only do one or the other?
I do think it possible, but I think the prioritising of image and box ticking exercises over meaningful change and intolerance of a rancid culture is pretty clear.
It's not that a flag or whatever causes things, but that the forces don't care about hard decisions of reform, and focus more on trivial actions because that's easy.
They even resist meaningful action.
It all falls into the reality that misgendering someone on Twitter brings out half a dozen officers for half a day; but house burglaries, car thefts, shoplifting etc, are just minor problems that don’t matter to the police beyond providing a reference number for an insurance claim.
As I was escorted around the Pomona cider brewery (near Bromyard) I had an epiphany from my Herefordshire childhood. You used to be able - aged 15 - to walk into one of the rougher but authentic pubs in Hereford and get a pint of “rough cider” - ie raw farmyard cider drawn straight from the barrel. The barrel which sat on the bar
Incredible in retrospect. Now the world - and the cider - is pasteurised
Still wooden and I think unpasteurised in the Somerset artisanal brewery I visit whenever down south.
'A spokesperson for the RSE told the Herald: “Neil Oliver was elected to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2020. During his time as a fellow did not take part in any RSE business.
“In discussion with Mr Oliver, he understood that his current views on various matters, widely aired on television, put him at odds with scientific and broader academic learning within the Society.
"Following discussions, he offered to resign his association with the RSE with immediate effect.”'
Wonder if it's to do with this vaccine stuff we've all heard about?
Comments
Tamworth is very interesting looks of commuter type estates, loads of countryside and of course on the east side of the town loads of what were once Council estates, which I well remember from my working in the town for the Youth Offending Service.
I used to drive 50k miles a year in the UK, and in wintry weather I’d make a point of cleaning lights and plates at every stop. Don’t give them an excuse to pull you over!
c. 13 months max to the GE and we now have 2 Cons held by-elections. If they go badly for the tories it adds to the ongoing meme that we're in the last days of Conservative rule (for now).
On the broader point, there are also externalities to consider - public perception of risk, for example. How many deaths does it take to change behaviours - i.e. how many train crashes until train passenger numbers fall? We're less sensitive to road deaths, on the whole, because we are all, personally, well above average drivers and know that only idiots get killed on the road
https://stalbanstimes.co.uk/harpenden/just-who-is-nigel-gardner-the-new-tory-candidate-for-harpenden/
Will not satisfy some of the Tories here who want lots of house building, and seems to be aiming at local soft LDs and conservation Tories (who all hate the local plan). Whilst he likes to blame the local LDs for the local plan demanding building on the green belt, he fails to mention that the local Tories had a similar plan when they were in charge of the council, and that this is due to mandates from the Westminster government. Also interesting connections with Cameron and Clegg. Is this what Cameroonian Leavers could look like?
Pause
So where is Norsex again?
Met police officer charged with six counts of rape, and making threats to kill.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/07/met-police-officer-charged-six-counts-rape-threats-to-kill/
Pc Cliff Mitchell, 23, was arrested after officers were called to an address in Hackbridge, south west London, on Tuesday, by a member of the public who found the woman.
Police were told the woman had been attacked inside a house by a man known to her, who subsequently forced her into a car.
Mitchell, a serving police officer, was not on duty at the time of the incident and has now been suspended from the force.
So it's Rutherglen, Mid Beds and Tamworth?
Imagine, a new building that is set up for electronic voting and none of this walking through doors nonsense. I know the Tories and the traditionalists will hate it, and it might change the nature of parliament / the speaker and such - but it's been a long time coming. Put it in Manchester or Birmingham, separate out our politics a bit across the country so it's not so London centric and boom - big impact with minimal constitutional fuckery.
Lab 8128 (40.2%)
Con 8091 (40.0%)
Ind 2786 (13.8%)
LD 763 (3.8%)
Ref/UKIP 245 (1.2%)
Grn 215 (1.1%)
In terms of contesting wards, Con got 1 small ward unopposed, Lab stood aside for a winning LD in one slightly larger ward. I figure they too balance.
In the unlikely event of a Tory win in Tamworth, the successful candidate should be standing next year.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/warnings-over-nhs-cover-up-culture-after-lucy-letby-case-wj7jvxhc2?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The Brief Sept 7, 2023&utm_term=audience_THE_BRIEF
I really wish, in my professional capacity, I could find a way of helping.But I have no particular entree into the place and I fear that resistance to any real change is deep-seated.
On which subject - banning - I can report to the Board that @isam contacted me about our bet and all is cleared up there.
But they do need more money for everything.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12488561/I-sedated-one-inch-life-lol-Bet-shes-flat-week-haha-xxx-Court-hears-chilling-texts-two-nurses-sent-drugging-patients-hospital-stroke-unit-amusement-shifts.html
'I sedated one of them to within an inch of her life lol, Bet she's flat for a week haha xxx': Court hears chilling texts two nurses sent after 'drugging patients on hospital stroke unit for "amusement" during shifts'
Their problem, though, is not that Hughes would be a loss but that he has in fact been validly selected as Tory candidate for the General Election. He's in his 50s so not on the brink of retirement, and probably quite likes being an MP. Also, the local party might well be a bit mad (as indicated by the eccentric choice of Hughes when they knew a by-election was quite likely to happen). So if Hughes and the constituency dig their heels in, it could get rather nasty - which in itself is sub-optimal when there's an election to fight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-55771208
Edit: he's been reinstated - I didn't know - great news. About time.
I've not done the maths but are you sure you're looking at the same poll, because there is no chance of those numbers delivering an SNP/Green majority.
Informant: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Collector: I don’t know, how many?
Informant: One, but the light has to want to change.
The helicopter operators, and the air traffic controllers, to bring up two subjects yesterday, they want to change, to see continuous improvement in how they operate.
But how much does the NHS or the police, as organisations, actually want to change?
Interesting that this was even possible though. I know of one hospital where every pharmaceutical is tracked (at the patient level) electronically and excessive use would (or at least, could - I don't know what thresholds they use, but it checks e.g. overdose, contra-indications) be picked up automatically. While since I worked with them, so I don't know what it does on ward level, e.g. if you - in the recording system - spread the excess around.
But, if he doesn't want to fight Tamworth now, whoever does stand for the Tories keeps the seat should they win.
My dad has suggested that an alternative solution is for the Tories to just not put up a candidate in the Tamworth by election!
As we saw with Letby though, the complainants are not always believed, which discourages others from raising concerns, particularly without direct evidence.
*disclaimer of personal interest - I had some involvement in NEWS
You can see this also in RAIB investigation reports following rail accidents of the "car drove onto level crossing when it should not have" variety -- the recommendations tend to suggest expensive purely rail-side mitigations such as closing level crossings or changing procedures, and ignore that the underlying problem is that the road system is pretty unsafe and spending money on that side would be a rather better return in lives saved per million quid spent, and would incidentally reduce the number of road vehicle accidents that happen to involve a railway...
https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/ibm-watson-health-failure-artificial-intelligence.html
In the hospital I mentioned, they did uncover some theft/fraud, but the main point was for legit things that never got administered for various reasons, catching some errors automatically, better stock control and ordering etc.
This was the first graph I found from a quick search.
Source: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/25/5933871/statistics-plane-crash-safety-accident-aircraft-MH17-malaysia
However, we’re dealing with a very technological, well regulated, and relatively new industry, where a no-blame ‘just’ culture has been embedded for decades, and where not just accidents but relatively minor incidents get reported, so that everyone can learn from everyone else’s bad day at work.
Great to see that PB Tories have finally caught up with the rest of us over the deep dodginess of the constabulary, mind. May spread to other areas..
Drug rounds require two nurses to be present.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-66738950
If they win they need to find him somewhere else.
I also think that a point should come where you go "this really should belong to the people of the UK" and turning it into a museum about British politics would be a great way to do that.
Shit men north of Richmond, North Yorkshire.
The weather continues fine. Bromyard seems to be doing OK. Again a notable lack of national collapse out here in the boondocks
A photo for @Farooq
'A spokesperson for the RSE told the Herald: “Neil Oliver was elected to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2020. During his time as a fellow did not take part in any RSE business.
“In discussion with Mr Oliver, he understood that his current views on various matters, widely aired on television, put him at odds with scientific and broader academic learning within the Society.
"Following discussions, he offered to resign his association with the RSE with immediate effect.”'
Wonder if it's to do with this vaccine stuff we've all heard about?
Incredible in retrospect. Now the world - and the cider - is pasteurised
It's not that a flag or whatever causes things, but that the forces don't care about hard decisions of reform, and focus more on trivial actions because that's easy.
They even resist meaningful action.
Starmer is very nasal, so debates are not going to be great on the ear.