Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. Most likely the Israeli government just doesn't want western media reporting from Gaza.
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
Yes. Not the least of the objections to multi member, huge constituency, candidates of the same party opposing each other STV etc systems is that may end up with 650 MPs all called Aaron Aardvark.
Mid Beds: I'm all green (thanks to early buys of Lab and Con, which I've traded out) but I 'invested' some of that profit in Lab at 3.5 yesterday. Haven't yet traded out again, so I guess I'm backing Lab. They were value at 3.5, for sure. I have been reasonably impressed by what I've seen of the Con candidate - including videos he was releasing of his canvassing before the by election was officially on, so I may yet trade out again.
Let's spare a thought today for Eddie Hughes MP, who will need to give an Oscar-worthy acting performance pretending to be disappointed if the Tories lose in Tamworth, or pretending to be pleased if they win.
Con win by less than 1,000 over Labour, with less than a third of the vote. Reform to finish fourth and hold deposit; no-one notices.
Conservative vote split between Conservatives and Reform and Labour sneak through the middle and take it.
That would be the absolute Lol response to the 'progressive alliance' types pearl-clutching at the Lib Dems and Labour both fighting and election to win.
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
Yes. Not the least of the objections to multi member, huge constituency, candidates of the same party opposing each other STV etc systems is that may end up with 650 MPs all called Aaron Aardvark.
I just thank goodness that my mother had the good sense to put my surname down on the birth certificate as 111AAANorfolk-Passmore. Led to a lot of bullying at school, and the Passport Office tend to have questions, but hopefully I shall enjoy the last laugh.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
Yes. Not the least of the objections to multi member, huge constituency, candidates of the same party opposing each other STV etc systems is that may end up with 650 MPs all called Aaron Aardvark.
I just thank goodness that my mother had the good sense to put my surname down on the birth certificate as 111AAANorfolk-Passmore. Led to a lot of bullying at school, and the Passport Office tend to have questions, but hopefully I shall enjoy the last laugh.
You'd not have liked sewing or stamping that on every piece of clothing or equipment in the days of conscription ...
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
Shrugged off by who? Who are you talking about here?
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
Mid Beds: I'm all green (thanks to early buys of Lab and Con, which I've traded out) but I 'invested' some of that profit in Lab at 3.5 yesterday. Haven't yet traded out again, so I guess I'm backing Lab. They were value at 3.5, for sure. I have been reasonably impressed by what I've seen of the Con candidate - including videos he was releasing of his canvassing before the by election was officially on, so I may yet trade out again.
So, actual prediction: Con. But I don't fancy them at under evens as at present - I see it tight between Con and Lab. Have however traded out Lab now.
Tories and Labour would like any third party to go away. Of course the two party state that they, and the Tories, prefer is a stepping stone to the one party state that they both really want.
I will not vote for either of them (and have doubts about any other party).
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
Okay thanks, and to OLB and Burgessian for the same answer.
If you’re all correct (I’m sure you are) this weaponisation of antisemitism is deeply unpleasant by Israel. Not least because it is the old story of crying wolf and so it is likely to be Jews that suffer as a result of it.
Mid Beds prediction: Tories to win but not by much. Low turnout. Hope I am wrong, as at the odds I have nibbled on Labour as value, and the Tories deserve obliteration.
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
More than "Very large majorities to overturn". Mid Beds would be the largest-ever Westminster majority overturned at a by-election*, if the Tories lose.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
With respect I think you may be overlooking the consequences of the misreporting. It's made things even worse. Too many people were too prepared to believe Israel was responsible, possibly due to a subliminal wish to prove to themselves that each side is as bad as the other while they themselves are even-handed and balanced.
I will confidently predict that if the Cons hold Mid Beds we will hear a lot from Lab about how the LDs lost the election for them but very little about their decision to parachute a London Cllr in as their candidate. Candidate selection really can matter in BEs as Lab should have learned from Uxbridge if not long before.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Mid Beds: I'm all green (thanks to early buys of Lab and Con, which I've traded out) but I 'invested' some of that profit in Lab at 3.5 yesterday. Haven't yet traded out again, so I guess I'm backing Lab. They were value at 3.5, for sure. I have been reasonably impressed by what I've seen of the Con candidate - including videos he was releasing of his canvassing before the by election was officially on, so I may yet trade out again.
So, actual prediction: Con. But I don't fancy them at under evens as at present - I see it tight between Con and Lab. Have however traded out Lab now.
Tories to hang on in mid beds, which hopefully will bang lib dems and Labour heads together, and construct a better strategy for GE, this will be a hollow victory for the Tories, and one they can take little comfort from.
Reflecting, I don't care what the Mid-Beds result is.
We already have the main benefit, which is the not-Baroness of Mid-Bedfordshire being ejected into the place of gnashing and grinding of teeth, presumably to write novels about diddicoys.
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
More than "Very large majorities to overturn". Mid Beds would be the largest-ever Westminster majority overturned at a by-election*, if the Tories lose.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
Great knowledge, great factoid.
The only way this was ever on was if the two opposition parties did a backroom deal, a la Somerton.
Sadly, the Liberals decided to hammer the seat despite their being in third place; and Labour were slow to the punch. A better example of a mismanaged FPP bear fight one could barely craft oneself.
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
I'd suggest a lot of this is to with the US having elections for relatively minor positions at the same time as major elections. So, if someone comes in to vote Trump or Biden, quite a few people really couldn't give a toss by the time they get to the election for municipal dog catcher.
One of the findings - "appearing first on the ballot in the 2000 presidential election increased George W. Bush’s vote share by almost 10 percentage points" - is one where I can't get access to the paper, so it may misrepresent the finding but, on the face of it, I'm just calling bullsh1t on it. Indeed, if it's right, Donald Trump can feel justifiably aggrieved that he lost the popular vote to both Biden and Clinton due to this massive effect!
I want the Tories to lose both seats. But I have to say the suggestion that the LDs should stand aside or give Labour an easy ride isn’t a fair assessment.
The Lib Dems are their own party. They are not Labour’s useful idiots to do their bidding when called for. They have their own policies and are entitled to fight any election as much as the next party.
Similarly, regarding “progressive alliances” - be careful what you wish for. If voters view a deal between two parties as a stitch up to game the system, they are liable to react in unexpected ways that might not be to the benefit of each alliance member. For instance, there are a lot of swing voters in rural southern seats who will not vote Labour, but they WILL vote Lib Dem as the anti-Tory choice. If presented with the concept that a vote for the LDs is a vote for Labour, those voters may reevaluate their votes accordingly.
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
More than "Very large majorities to overturn". Mid Beds would be the largest-ever Westminster majority overturned at a by-election*, if the Tories lose.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
Tiv and Hon 24,239 Richmond Park 23,015 Christchurch 23,015 (apparently a tie???) North Shropshire 22,949
So yes it would be a new record by a few hundred.
Christchurch looks like the one to beat 23,015 overturned and new majority of 16,427.
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
Yes. Not the least of the objections to multi member, huge constituency, candidates of the same party opposing each other STV etc systems is that may end up with 650 MPs all called Aaron Aardvark.
I just thank goodness that my mother had the good sense to put my surname down on the birth certificate as 111AAANorfolk-Passmore. Led to a lot of bullying at school, and the Passport Office tend to have questions, but hopefully I shall enjoy the last laugh.
Did Her Majesty crack a smile about it when you picked up your knighthood?
Con 34% Lab 28% LD 28% Reform 4% Green 3% Others 3%
If I remember from day one you predicted Tories on 35% and you said that would probably win it for for them. If you turn out to be right you'll take over from David Herdson as PB's new seer.
Con 34% Lab 28% LD 28% Reform 4% Green 3% Others 3%
If I remember from day one you predicted Tories on 35% and you said that would probably win it for for them. If you turn out to be right you'll take over from David Herdson as PB's new seer.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
Yes. Not the least of the objections to multi member, huge constituency, candidates of the same party opposing each other STV etc systems is that may end up with 650 MPs all called Aaron Aardvark.
I just thank goodness that my mother had the good sense to put my surname down on the birth certificate as 111AAANorfolk-Passmore. Led to a lot of bullying at school, and the Passport Office tend to have questions, but hopefully I shall enjoy the last laugh.
Did Her Majesty crack a smile about it when you picked up your knighthood?
HMQ unavailable on the day, so I actually picked mine up from Princess Aaaaaanne.
Any combo of the top 3 in Mid Beds is plausible. I think the LDs’ odds are too long and the Cons’ too short. If I had to pick, Labour to win, Con 2nd, LD 3rd.
Hopefully I’ve expressed sufficient uncertainty that I won’t get ribbed for getting it wrong!
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
Blood libel is a very specific thing, not shorthand for an accusation (justified or not) of blood on their hands.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
I don’t see how that can really be seen as referencing the blood libel.
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
Yes. Not the least of the objections to multi member, huge constituency, candidates of the same party opposing each other STV etc systems is that may end up with 650 MPs all called Aaron Aardvark.
I just thank goodness that my mother had the good sense to put my surname down on the birth certificate as 111AAANorfolk-Passmore. Led to a lot of bullying at school, and the Passport Office tend to have questions, but hopefully I shall enjoy the last laugh.
Did Her Majesty crack a smile about it when you picked up your knighthood?
HMQ unavailable on the day, so I actually picked mine up from Princess Aaaaaanne.
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
More than "Very large majorities to overturn". Mid Beds would be the largest-ever Westminster majority overturned at a by-election*, if the Tories lose.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
Tiv and Hon 24,239 Richmond Park 23,015 Christchurch 23,015 (apparently a tie???) North Shropshire 22,949
So yes it would be a new record by a few hundred.
Christchurch looks like the one to beat 23,015 overturned and new majority of 16,427.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
Blood libel is a very specific thing, not shorthand for an accusation of blood on their hands.
You're very likely right. I don't necessarily endorse the charge. As it happens I'm a fan of the Beeb. But I do think the Israelis have a right to be very very angry. The consequences of misinformation about something like that are very grave indeed.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
With respect, that’s not what you said: Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point.
And as for whether the reporting of the hospital attack constitutes blood libel: Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation)[1][2] is an antisemitic canard[3][4][5] which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christian boys in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals.
Credulously buying into the claims of either side in this conflict is dodgy, it seems.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
With respect I think you may be overlooking the consequences of the misreporting. It's made things even worse. Too many people were too prepared to believe Israel was responsible, possibly due to a subliminal wish to prove to themselves that each side is as bad as the other while they themselves are even-handed and balanced.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
With respect I think you may be overlooking the consequences of the misreporting. It's made things even worse. Too many people were too prepared to believe Israel was responsible, possibly due to a subliminal wish to prove to themselves that each side is as bad as the other while they themselves are even-handed and balanced.
When Gaza is under continuos bombardment from the Israelis it wasn't surprising that ALL the news outlets (Al Jazeerah unlike the BBC have reporters in Gaza City) assumed the bomb was from the Israelis. What's more their history in the area for misinformation is such that even if the Israelis had denied it immediately few in the Arab world would have believed them.
The way to win PB byelection prediction competitions is to choose something unexpected which no one else has picked. Byelections being so hard to predict. Therefore:
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
Blood libel is a very specific thing, not shorthand for an accusation of blood on their hands.
You're very likely right. I don't necessarily endorse the charge. As it happens I'm a fan of the Beeb. But I do think the Israelis have a right to be very very angry. The consequences of misinformation about something like that are very grave indeed.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
Blood libel is a very specific thing, not shorthand for an accusation of blood on their hands.
You're very likely right. I don't necessarily endorse the charge. As it happens I'm a fan of the Beeb. But I do think the Israelis have a right to be very very angry. The consequences of misinformation about something like that are very grave indeed.
Yes but you’re also spreading misinformation, it seems. (Not suggesting this is intentional).
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
With respect I think you may be overlooking the consequences of the misreporting. It's made things even worse. Too many people were too prepared to believe Israel was responsible, possibly due to a subliminal wish to prove to themselves that each side is as bad as the other while they themselves are even-handed and balanced.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
With respect I think you may be overlooking the consequences of the misreporting. It's made things even worse. Too many people were too prepared to believe Israel was responsible, possibly due to a subliminal wish to prove to themselves that each side is as bad as the other while they themselves are even-handed and balanced.
When Gaza is under continuos bombardment from the Israelis it wasn't surprising that ALL the news outlets (Al Jazeerah unlike the BBC have reporters in Gaza City) assumed the bomb was from the Israelis. What's more their history in the area for misinformation is such that even if the Israelis had denied it immediately few in the Arab world would have believed them.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Why on earth would protesters want to prevent that film being shown ? Did it say ?
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
No, that's not what's happening. As you aren't going to read the actual report, here's the TLDR.
Decarbonisation plans across the globe require zero-carbon energy sources to be widely deployed by 2050 or 2060. Solar energy is the most widely available energy resource on Earth, and its economic attractiveness is improving fast in a cycle of increasing investments. Here we use data-driven conditional technology and economic forecasting modelling to establish which zero carbon power sources could become dominant worldwide. We find that, due to technological trajectories set in motion by past policy, a global irreversible solar tipping point may have passed where solar energy gradually comes to dominate global electricity markets, without any further climate policies. Uncertainties arise, however, over grid stability in a renewables-dominated power system, the availability of sufficient finance in underdeveloped economies, the capacity of supply chains and political resistance from regions that lose employment. Policies resolving these barriers may be more effective than price instruments to accelerate the transition to clean energy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41971-7
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
The Speccie has strengthened its paywall recently. Is there a workaround at the moment? It used to be worth paying for but sadly no longer.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
The Speccie has strengthened its paywall recently. Is there a workaround at the moment? It used to be worth paying for but sadly no longer.
Go into an Inprivate window (or equivalent) and click from there.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
Is social progress a factor? ie women being empowered to do things other than having and raising children?
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
More than "Very large majorities to overturn". Mid Beds would be the largest-ever Westminster majority overturned at a by-election*, if the Tories lose.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
Tiv and Hon 24,239 Richmond Park 23,015 Christchurch 23,015 (apparently a tie???) North Shropshire 22,949
So yes it would be a new record by a few hundred.
Christchurch looks like the one to beat 23,015 overturned and new majority of 16,427.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
I've read the article now: and I am totally on board with the core message, that depopulation and greying are massively more serious issues than overpopulation.
That said, I don't see the data in there about the worldwide drop in birthrates being principally due to childless women. Sure: it's a significant part of the equation in the developed world, but a negligible part in much of the developing world.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Why on earth would protesters want to prevent that film being shown ? Did it say ?
I think because the view of the protestors was that it was bad for the environment to have children and that a film saying fewer children were being had anyway might make people less reluctant to have children of their own.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
Dunno. Not an expert. But I imagine the charge that they had targeted a hospital might have somewhat infuriated them.
But hang on. Rereading your post you say ‘they have a point’. What’s their point? They might be right to be infuriated but you are specifically talking about the blood libel claim.
Nope. I simply thought they had a point which justified their being so angry. However thinking about it, the implication of the charge was that they had the blood of the hospital victims on their hands. Which could be seen as a "blood libel".
Blood libel is a very specific thing, not shorthand for an accusation of blood on their hands.
You're very likely right. I don't necessarily endorse the charge. As it happens I'm a fan of the Beeb. But I do think the Israelis have a right to be very very angry. The consequences of misinformation about something like that are very grave indeed.
The fact this is being discussed at such a high level suggests that, despite its many critics, the BBC matters very much indeed in global terms. Looked at from another planet this is all about a bit of news coverage by a country far away of no relevance to the middle east which is exactly one of several thousand news outlets across the world covering the story.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Why on earth would protesters want to prevent that film being shown ? Did it say ?
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
I've read the article now: and I am totally on board with the core message, that depopulation and greying are massively more serious issues than overpopulation.
That said, I don't see the data in there about the worldwide drop in birthrates being principally due to childless women. Sure: it's a significant part of the equation in the developed world, but a negligible part in much of the developing world.
There are surely two largely independent phenomena: the decline in family sizes in the developing world due to the spread of industrial modernity, and the decline in family formation in the developed world, for a variety of reasons that need explanation.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
Two demand-side measures. How about a supply-side one?
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Mid Beds: I'm all green (thanks to early buys of Lab and Con, which I've traded out) but I 'invested' some of that profit in Lab at 3.5 yesterday. Haven't yet traded out again, so I guess I'm backing Lab. They were value at 3.5, for sure. I have been reasonably impressed by what I've seen of the Con candidate - including videos he was releasing of his canvassing before the by election was officially on, so I may yet trade out again.
So, actual prediction: Con. But I don't fancy them at under evens as at present - I see it tight between Con and Lab. Have however traded out Lab now.
Playing it like a violin there. Hats off.
There's a reason I'm not mentioning Tamworth!
(Thought I had a trading bet there, expecting the odds to tighten on Con at some point, but the market has been stubbornly of the view it's a Labour win. Mid Beds covers the potential loss though and, who knows, if the Blues do come through then I'll be sitting on some extra fortuitous profit.)
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
I've read the article now: and I am totally on board with the core message, that depopulation and greying are massively more serious issues than overpopulation.
That said, I don't see the data in there about the worldwide drop in birthrates being principally due to childless women. Sure: it's a significant part of the equation in the developed world, but a negligible part in much of the developing world.
There are surely two largely independent phenomena: the decline in family sizes in the developing world due to the spread of industrial modernity, and the decline in family formation in the developed world, for a variety of reasons that need explanation.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Where couples do have children it is also increasingly just 1 or at most 2, especially in the West.
Certainly more women put careers first, 50 even 25 years ago many women left work in their early 30s when they had children and never went back, certainly full time and the husband was the main bread winner expecte to have the job and career. Leaving it too late to have children also makes it more difficult.
Women are also more fussy, apps give them wider choice rather than settling for the guy down the road but at the end of the day there are still only so many men to go round and hence we also have more angry incels too.
There need to be more tax breaks and transfers between spouses so women who want to stay at home with children can and we could increase child benefits for the first 2 children too
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
That is the thrust of the report - the growth in renewables is irreversible owing to falling prices, but that has implications for both grid design and medium to long term government policy and planning.
Also, there's a huge, underinvested market opportunity in Africa, if the policy risk can be sorted.
The Libs are now so long on BX (12) that they are almost worth a saver, lest the unvarnished propaganda we've been subjected to by @theakes all week proves to contain a grain of truth.
Tories going with a candidate whose surname begins with an A. Being top of the ballot can be worth a few points, but maybe that doesn't apply when there are so many candidates.
Only really in multi-member constituencies versus fellow candidates of the same party (since people either don't realise they have multiple votes or decide to vote in a two member ward for, say, the independent plus one Tory, in which case they tend to pick the first Tory name on the ballot).
I'm not aware of any evidence this is mirrored, or at least to any meaningful degree, in elections for a single member.
I'd suggest a lot of this is to with the US having elections for relatively minor positions at the same time as major elections. So, if someone comes in to vote Trump or Biden, quite a few people really couldn't give a toss by the time they get to the election for municipal dog catcher.
One of the findings - "appearing first on the ballot in the 2000 presidential election increased George W. Bush’s vote share by almost 10 percentage points" - is one where I can't get access to the paper, so it may misrepresent the finding but, on the face of it, I'm just calling bullsh1t on it. Indeed, if it's right, Donald Trump can feel justifiably aggrieved that he lost the popular vote to both Biden and Clinton due to this massive effect!
Quasi-learned semi-commentary (and visa versa)
> Finding cited "that appearing first on the ballot in the 2000 presidential election increased George W. Bush’s vote share by almost 10 percentage points relative to appearing last" is likely very significantly influenced, by the fact that in many states, ballot order in partisan races is determined by which party's candidate for President, or Governor, or state Secretary of State came in first in the previous election. Meaning that in Republican-leaning states the GOP candidates appear before their Democratic or independent or 3-party contenders, while in Democratic-leaning states the Ds have precedence.
> As for surmise that candidates for lesser office on American election ballots contribute to the advantage of being first on the ballot, there is some truth to this; however, note that there is also tendency for some voters to skip lower-ballot races, either because they lack (in their own view) sufficient information and/or interest to make choice, OR in nonpartisan races there is no party identifier (thus you can't just vote for the Republican or the Democrat or whatever based just on the info provided on the ballot).
FYI (and BTW) in Washington State
> Ballot order for PRIMARY election ballots is determined by lot drawing; while ballot order for GENERAL elections by the number of votes the Top Two primary vote-getters received with the candidate with most votes listed first.
> California has system whereby the ballot order in primaries is even more randomized, differs from ballot to ballot in same jurisdiction.
> In number of other states, candidates for primary are listed in the order in which they file or otherwise qualify for the primary ballot.
My own personal observation is this - ballot order CAN be decisive in very, very, close elections, but in actual practice not so much, because it is only the dumber and/or more cynical voter who just pick the top of the list.
Interesting real-world examples: primary voting for West Virginia House of Delegates in Kanawha County (Charleston) back when the state's largest county elected (IIRC) 14 on a unified ballot, with a horde of candidates on the primary ballot, of which the top 14 from each major party went on to the general election. Believe the record for the Dem ballot (back when Dems dominated state politics) was over 60. Meaning that the actual ballot paper, which included other offices as well as House of Delegates, was often several feet long!
Being listed at or near the top did have some advantage . . . but so did being listed at or near the bottom. And primary as well as general-election winners were rarely (IIRC) determined simply by ballot order.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
With respect I think you may be overlooking the consequences of the misreporting. It's made things even worse. Too many people were too prepared to believe Israel was responsible, possibly due to a subliminal wish to prove to themselves that each side is as bad as the other while they themselves are even-handed and balanced.
Israeli Government going very hard on BBC accusing it of blood libel. They have a point. The misreporting, and the usual suspects sounding off , heightened tensions still further and undermined Bidens peace initiative. Islamic Jihad must be delighted. If the rocket had hit its intended target, and killed a few hundred Jews, it would have been shrugged off, with a bit of cautionary advice to the Israelis not to overreact.
I had to re-Google blood libel to check I understood it after reading this.
The BBC might have poorly reported the hospital attack, but how does that link to the blood libel claims?
Genuine question.
It doesn't. It's bonkers. Israel sometimes tests the patience of its long term liberal minded supporters (including me). The BBC has to be taken over all, not in single sentences or two minutes of hyperbole. The last few days have shown it to be (WRT news and current affairs, loads of other stuff is junk) a fantastic organisation, a good deed in a naughty world and a bastion of the idea of objectivity. These values will always be expressed imperfectly. But compared, say, with the imperfections of Israel they are small.
With respect I think you may be overlooking the consequences of the misreporting. It's made things even worse. Too many people were too prepared to believe Israel was responsible, possibly due to a subliminal wish to prove to themselves that each side is as bad as the other while they themselves are even-handed and balanced.
When Gaza is under continuos bombardment from the Israelis it wasn't surprising that ALL the news outlets (Al Jazeerah unlike the BBC have reporters in Gaza City) assumed the bomb was from the Israelis. What's more their history in the area for misinformation is such that even if the Israelis had denied it immediately few in the Arab world would have believed them.
"Solar is set to overpower fossil fuels as the dominant electricity source globally by 2050, according to a new study. [...] Solar power is set to dominate global electricity markets within the next few decades, and may have already reached an “irreversible tipping point,” according to a study published this week in Nature Communications. The study finds that solar adoption will continue apace barring any major policy shifts geared at disrupting it." https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1714988564801519937
In other words it will continue until people stop flinging subsidies at it. That's hardly surprising. Powering the world with blancmange would be winning the energy race if it was subsidised as we do with favoured renewables.
If you borrow £1,000 to put solar panels on your roof in England, they will reduce your electricity bill by about £180-200/year.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Mm, a whole lot better than fracking as demonstrated on even the most optimal UK sites, too. And the pollution problem is different (original production costs aside). You just clean up the bird crap every now and then.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy but you can have children while renting, 100 years ago most parents rented all their lives
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy but you can have children while renting, 100 years ago most parents rented all their lives
And look what happened. They invented the Labour Party. No wonder.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
Not in Africa so much, most African nations have 3-6 children on average per woman
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy but you can have children while renting, 100 years ago most parents rented all their lives
And look what happened. They invented the Labour Party. No wonder.
Most rented even 50 years after the first Labour government, only by the 1980s did most own a property
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
Not in Africa so much, most African nations have 3-6 children on average per woman
Almost like things are different in different parts of the world. Some places have over population, some under...both can cause issues.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
Not in Africa so much, most African nations have 3-6 children on average per woman
The Digested, digested: The film is "Birthgap - Childless World (part 1)" directed by Stephen J Shaw. The protestors considered the film's core message (women are leaving having a child too late with deleritous results) as antifeminist. People divided on culture war lines, arguments were had, the film was cancelled and then shown, nobody died.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy but you can have children while renting, 100 years ago most parents rented all their lives
And look what happened. They invented the Labour Party. No wonder.
Most rented even 50 years after the first Labour government, only by the 1980s did most own a property
But from far fewer private landlords (until Mrs T).
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
The Libs are now so long on BX (12) that they are almost worth a saver, lest the unvarnished propaganda we've been subjected to by @theakes all week proves to contain a grain of truth.
I see no good evidenced-based reason why the Lib Dems should go out so far so fast today. Even if someone has (very naughtily) let on about postal vote returns, these are difficult to verify with any accuracy as they're all done upside-down and there's no idea about relative (or indeed absolute) turnout until the count, so such a leak would be unreliable as well as illegal.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
Two demand-side measures. How about a supply-side one?
Encourage men to be more charming.
There are strong incentives for men to be charming already - getting laid, obviously.
That incentive doesn't necessarily create men who want to settle down and have a family.
Comments
So I am not making any predictions, in case anyone listens !
Haven't yet traded out again, so I guess I'm backing Lab. They were value at 3.5, for sure. I have been reasonably impressed by what I've seen of the Con candidate - including videos he was releasing of his canvassing before the by election was officially on, so I may yet trade out again.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
I will not vote for either of them (and have doubts about any other party).
If you’re all correct (I’m sure you are) this weaponisation of antisemitism is deeply unpleasant by Israel. Not least because it is the old story of crying wolf and so it is likely to be Jews that suffer as a result of it.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
They are now odds-on, and rightly so.
Liberal hubris there means the blues should squeeze through the middle.
I'm slightly more confident of a Labour win in Tamworth, but there's no value there.
If they do lose it won’t be due to a lack of effort.
We already have the main benefit, which is the not-Baroness of Mid-Bedfordshire being ejected into the place of gnashing and grinding of teeth, presumably to write novels about diddicoys.
The only way this was ever on was if the two opposition parties did a backroom deal, a la Somerton.
Sadly, the Liberals decided to hammer the seat despite their being in third place; and Labour were slow to the punch. A better example of a mismanaged FPP bear fight one could barely craft oneself.
One of the findings - "appearing first on the ballot in the 2000 presidential election increased George W. Bush’s vote share by almost 10 percentage points" - is one where I can't get access to the paper, so it may misrepresent the finding but, on the face of it, I'm just calling bullsh1t on it. Indeed, if it's right, Donald Trump can feel justifiably aggrieved that he lost the popular vote to both Biden and Clinton due to this massive effect!
The Lib Dems are their own party. They are not Labour’s useful idiots to do their bidding when called for. They have their own policies and are entitled to fight any election as much as the next party.
Similarly, regarding “progressive alliances” - be careful what you wish for. If voters view a deal between two parties as a stitch up to game the system, they are liable to react in unexpected ways that might not be to the benefit of each alliance member. For instance, there are a lot of swing voters in rural southern seats who will not vote Labour, but they WILL vote Lib Dem as the anti-Tory choice. If presented with the concept that a vote for the LDs is a vote for Labour, those voters may reevaluate their votes accordingly.
I reckon Tories by 4k
Richmond Park 23,015
Christchurch 23,015 (apparently a tie???)
North Shropshire 22,949
So yes it would be a new record by a few hundred.
Christchurch looks like the one to beat 23,015 overturned and new majority of 16,427.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records
Lab 36
LD 28
Con 26
Any combo of the top 3 in Mid Beds is plausible. I think the LDs’ odds are too long and the Cons’ too short. If I had to pick, Labour to win, Con 2nd, LD 3rd.
Hopefully I’ve expressed sufficient uncertainty that I won’t get ribbed for getting it wrong!
Only Lib Dems, Labour (Nick Palmer) and True and Fair telling this morning in Flitwick.
Labour are not collecting polling numbers, just being friendly outside the polling station.
They must be relying on a full knockup.
Both Labour and Lib Dem offices were busy as I passed.
Conservative and Labour (Rachel Reaves) were knocking up in the same village as me.
Lots of hard work from all quarters so turnout could be higher than expected.
And as for whether the reporting of the hospital attack constitutes blood libel: Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation)[1][2] is an antisemitic canard[3][4][5] which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christian boys in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals.
Credulously buying into the claims of either side in this conflict is dodgy, it seems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFtE9HMtiOc
Mid beds:
Libs 35
Lab 34
Cons 26
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-real-reason-for-falling-birth-rates/
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children.
The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant.
Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Cons 35%, Lab 34%, LDs 25% Others 6%
Labour to gain Tamworth
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
As you aren't going to read the actual report, here's the TLDR.
Decarbonisation plans across the globe require zero-carbon energy sources to be widely deployed by 2050 or 2060. Solar energy is the most widely available energy resource on Earth, and its economic attractiveness is improving fast in a cycle of increasing investments. Here we use data-driven conditional technology and economic forecasting modelling to establish which zero carbon power sources could become dominant worldwide. We find that, due to technological trajectories set in motion by past policy, a global irreversible solar tipping point may have passed where solar energy gradually comes to dominate global electricity markets, without any further climate policies. Uncertainties arise, however, over grid stability in a renewables-dominated power system, the availability of sufficient finance in underdeveloped economies, the capacity of supply chains and political resistance from regions that lose employment. Policies resolving these barriers may be more effective than price instruments to accelerate the transition to clean energy.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41971-7
That said, I don't see the data in there about the worldwide drop in birthrates being principally due to childless women. Sure: it's a significant part of the equation in the developed world, but a negligible part in much of the developing world.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
Weather is better than expected and voting was brisk. Saw both Lab and LD GOTV, no sign of Cons.
And that purchase involves exactly zero subsidies.
That's an 18-20% annual tax free return.
The vast majority of residential and commercial solar installations these days are done without subsidy.
Encourage men to be more charming.
Non-paywall version
https://archive.ph/KTVD
The film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6s8QlIGanA (full movie)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2mSKhA4Y_s (trailer)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt24075174/ (IMDB)
https://nitter.net/StephenJShaw/status/1666191442333532160 (Author twitter)
The protest
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/25512 (It's antifeminist!)
https://www.varsity.co.uk/science/25496 (Jeez Cambridge, enough of the antiwork stuff already!)
(Thought I had a trading bet there, expecting the odds to tighten on Con at some point, but the market has been stubbornly of the view it's a Labour win. Mid Beds covers the potential loss though and, who knows, if the Blues do come through then I'll be sitting on some extra fortuitous profit.)
After my stunningly successful prediction of a narrow result in Rutherglen I’m doubling down on that predictive genius with the following:
Con: 32%
Lab: 30%
LD: 26%
Ind: 8%
Other: 4%
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/sidney-powell-attorney-who-aided-trumps-bid-to-subvert-election-pleads-guilty-00122444
*Though in Georgia, not DC.
Should she make a plea deal in the federal case, that might really hole Trump below the waterline.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
Certainly more women put careers first, 50 even 25 years ago many women left work in their early 30s when they had children and never went back, certainly full time and the husband was the main bread winner expecte to have the job and career. Leaving it too late to have children also makes it more difficult.
Women are also more fussy, apps give them wider choice rather than settling for the guy down the road but at the end of the day there are still only so many men to go round and hence we also have more angry incels too.
There need to be more tax breaks and transfers between spouses so women who want to stay at home with children can and we could increase child benefits for the first 2 children too
Also, there's a huge, underinvested market opportunity in Africa, if the policy risk can be sorted.
> Finding cited "that appearing first on the ballot in the 2000 presidential election increased George W. Bush’s vote share by almost 10 percentage points relative to appearing last" is likely very significantly influenced, by the fact that in many states, ballot order in partisan races is determined by which party's candidate for President, or Governor, or state Secretary of State came in first in the previous election. Meaning that in Republican-leaning states the GOP candidates appear before their Democratic or independent or 3-party contenders, while in Democratic-leaning states the Ds have precedence.
> As for surmise that candidates for lesser office on American election ballots contribute to the advantage of being first on the ballot, there is some truth to this; however, note that there is also tendency for some voters to skip lower-ballot races, either because they lack (in their own view) sufficient information and/or interest to make choice, OR in nonpartisan races there is no party identifier (thus you can't just vote for the Republican or the Democrat or whatever based just on the info provided on the ballot).
FYI (and BTW) in Washington State
> Ballot order for PRIMARY election ballots is determined by lot drawing; while ballot order for GENERAL elections by the number of votes the Top Two primary vote-getters received with the candidate with most votes listed first.
> California has system whereby the ballot order in primaries is even more randomized, differs from ballot to ballot in same jurisdiction.
> In number of other states, candidates for primary are listed in the order in which they file or otherwise qualify for the primary ballot.
My own personal observation is this - ballot order CAN be decisive in very, very, close elections, but in actual practice not so much, because it is only the dumber and/or more cynical voter who just pick the top of the list.
Interesting real-world examples: primary voting for West Virginia House of Delegates in Kanawha County (Charleston) back when the state's largest county elected (IIRC) 14 on a unified ballot, with a horde of candidates on the primary ballot, of which the top 14 from each major party went on to the general election. Believe the record for the Dem ballot (back when Dems dominated state politics) was over 60. Meaning that the actual ballot paper, which included other offices as well as House of Delegates, was often several feet long!
Being listed at or near the top did have some advantage . . . but so did being listed at or near the bottom. And primary as well as general-election winners were rarely (IIRC) determined simply by ballot order.
https://www.newarab.com/news/bbc-correspondent-resigns-over-israel-gaza-coverage
The Digested, digested: The film is "Birthgap - Childless World (part 1)" directed by Stephen J Shaw. The protestors considered the film's core message (women are leaving having a child too late with deleritous results) as antifeminist. People divided on culture war lines, arguments were had, the film was cancelled and then shown, nobody died.
Ten Words Or Less: PEOPLE ARE UPSET.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/01/02/maybe-baby-population-politics-part-2/
Anecdotes in articles such as this one (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/13/it-is-devastating-the-millennials-who-would-love-to-have-kids-but-cant-afford-a-family) in the Guardian give the impression that financial pressures are reducing the fertility rate among those in professional occupations. However, data from the ONS suggests that the decreases in fertility rates between 2014 and 2019 were larger among those in lower supervisory, technical and (semi-) routine occupations.
Biden eases sanctions on Venezuelan oil and Republicans howl
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/18/biden-venezuela-oil-sanctions-nicolas-maduro-00121779
That incentive doesn't necessarily create men who want to settle down and have a family.