What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
Along with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
Depends on where @Nigel_Foremain is, I guess. Is his the sort of seat that flips on a ten percent swing or a twenty percent swing?
(Sort of reverse of my calculation in 2019, when I was living in not-Romford. It was a seat that the Conservatives would only win in a landslide, and I didn't want Johnson having a landslide, because I feared a version of what came to pass. So I voted Labour to try and defend a decent enough local MP and keep any Conservative win within reasonable bounds, not because of any enthusiasm for Comrade Jez. It didn't work, even at a local level. Flip knows what I'd have done if my constituency had been a "putting Labour into government" type. I suspect that normal people don't think that much about it.)
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
So you'll only vote for Labour when you feel they won't win?
In the interests of transparency I have voted SDP, LD and Tory. I once voted Labour for a P&C Commissioner just for the fun of seeing what it felt like and I felt dirty.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
All the evidence is the other way around.
A big majority ends up with the leadership doing whatever it wants with little scrutiny. A small majority ends up with the leadership negotiating policy step by step with the most extreme in their party.
Both have problems, but the one you are more afraid of is the wrong way around.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
Con 41.9 (+10.5) SNP 29.3 (-6.9) Lab 16.1 (+9.6) LD 8.3 (+3.9) Grn 4.3 (New) No ind as prev
Con 1682 SNP 1175 Lab 644 LD 333 Green 176
His unbroken run of by-election fails continues.
The ward has been moved out of Angus for Westminster and is in the new Arbroath and Broughty Ferry seat, which is the successor to Dundee East, one of the safest SNP seats.
Howeve rit has interesting implications for the next door Angus & Perthshire Glens seat which is a Tory target (and being contested by Stephen Kerr MSP, the former \Tory MP for Stirling)
Angus & the Glens, as well as being a great beat combo, is my seat. The SNP will need a catastrophic melt down to lose it to the Tories. I think the Unionist vote will split with non Tory unionists less willing to vote Tory, even to defeat the SNP. The irritation with the current Westminster government probably exceeds even the irritation with Holyrood, although it is close.
I am expecting an SNP hold. What I suspect has happened in that local authority seat is that the Independent was basically a Tory and his vote has favoured them. Its interesting though because Angus Council is quite finely balanced. No local elections in Scotland next week.
Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?
Arguable. The Agreement included formal alignment on most policy, participation of the junior partner in government as ministers as well as confidence and supply. There's no constitutional definition of coalition in Scotland as far as I know, but the SNP/Green partnership looked very much like one.
The SLab-SLD governments were formal coalitions weren’t they? Wallace was Deputy FM and served as acting FM which is about as formal as you can get.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
Along with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.
They were generalists. Knowing something about the business would have contaminated their minds with "technical issues" rather than maintaining their "10,000 foot view".
On the old boundaries 420 seats=losing none and adding 218 seats. The 218th target seat is Derbyshire Dales, requiring a swing of 17.43%; the majority is 18,797.
I don't think so, but it's not impossible.
17-18% is the ballpark swing we are seeing at the moment. And whilst there ought, surely, to be some swingback towards the government, we've all been saying that for a year or so and there's no sign of it yet. If anything, there is continuing swingaway.
It is crazy to imagine Labour gaining 200+ seats in one go, especially given that SKS is worthy but dull. But looked at from a different direction, it's crazy to imagine the Conservatives successfully defending 200 seats.
And something like one of those two crazy things has to happen, because the number of MPs has to total 650.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Yet you didn't vote Tory when Labour actually was the party of Corbyn?
I couldn't out of conscience because the buffoon was Tory leader and the loonies had taken over the Tories.
Assuming a Lab majority is already highly likely, this is one of a few interesting sub-plots isn't it? Plus:
- Will Con get a lower seat total than Major in 97 Hard to call
- Will Ref win any seats No. Which are their suggested seats to win? Except maybe by defection before or after the election - but I've no idea where. Is Tice going to be upstanding, bearing in mind that the Reform Party Company defines him as a "person of no significant control"?
- Will Lib Dems overtake SNP into 3rd place Probably given current events in SNP-land and in the Tory-sack, plus I hope so.
- Will Lib Dems hang on to any of their byelection gains Yes. Suggest Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, Somerton and Frome ie all of them. AFAICS all of the second places are Conservatives - how would they lose?
- Will Green win any seats Tricky. I'm not sure.
- Will Mogg (+ various others) lose their seats - Perhaps 50% will, depending on your list.
There is talk that Thangham Debonnaire will lose in Bristol. A shame as she is a cut above many Labour MPs and candidates.
And also has an awesome name. A factor not to be sniffed at in life.
Passer-by: "Oi, Tubbs! You have a mundane name!" Tubbs (thinks to self): "Hmmm, I have an idea..."
i've seen my first Conservative Party poster in my ward for the coming local elections. It is on the wire fence in front of a building being demolished. A Conservative poster in front of a wrecked house seems an appropriate image.
I have had a flyer from Labour and seen a youtube ad for Labour. North East Mayor.
The local Kirklees by-law that allows election posters on lampposts is a small but unalloyed good thing imho. You very much know when the local elections are on and who might 'win here' as you travel through different wards.
I've never looked at if it drives higher turnout on a like for like basis, but I may check that against this year's results.
Sturgeon bears a lot of responsibility for the mess the SNP find themselves in right now but it is hard to see her being so politically tin-eared as to think that transitioning to a minority government requires you to upset, attack and denigrate all other parties in the parliament as your first move…
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Yet you didn't vote Tory when Labour actually was the party of Corbyn?
The ‘unaligned’ PB Tories are some of my favourites.
How dare you call me a Tory, I’ve only voted Conservative on 9 out of 11 possible occasions, and the last 2 times Jezza made me do it.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
But everyone will not have that attitude. And despite the gnashing of teeth and the childish hyperbolic bollox put out by Labour supporters , the Rishi government is not really that terrible (sorry to break it to you) and a Labour government is highly unlikely to be any more professional, particularly with all the second raters (that would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world) on their front bench.
All the second raters..... Just like the Tory front bench then.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
But everyone will not have that attitude. And despite the gnashing of teeth and the childish hyperbolic bollox put out by Labour supporters , the Rishi government is not really that terrible (sorry to break it to you) and a Labour government is highly unlikely to be any more professional, particularly with all the second raters (that would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world) on their front bench.
All the second raters..... Just like the Tory front bench then.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
Along with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.
I have sympathy for the PO people on trial giving evidence at the inquiry. They clearly know that they are deep in the shit. Some of them knew about issues for over a decade and yet carried on lying to sub post masters and getting them convicted, made bankrupt, sacked and in extremis sent to prison for crimes that not only they didn't do, but actually never happened. They must fear that anything they admit to at the inquiry can be used to help convict them later.
That said, I am not sure what the answer is. To get to the truth, with their help, would have needed immunity from prosecution, and no-one wants that (apart from those in the dock). And so we have the unsatisfactory situation of amnesia being so widespread among senior and ex-senior PO staff that UKHSA ought to be looking for novel memory deleting pathogen...
The point is whether as ministers they had a vote in the cabinet. THey didn't even attend the cabinet meetings normally.
That suggests to me that Cabinet's role was subverted by the agreement. We can be sure that there were meetings between the SNP and Greens where government business was discussed to keep both parties together in their I can't believe it's not a coalition.
Pure semantics to structure the coalition in such a way that the Greens could still claim short money.
Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?
Arguable. The Agreement included formal alignment on most policy, participation of the junior partner in government as ministers as well as confidence and supply. There's no constitutional definition of coalition in Scotland as far as I know, but the SNP/Green partnership looked very much like one.
The SLab-SLD governments were formal coalitions weren’t they? Wallace was Deputy FM and served as acting FM which is about as formal as you can get.
By the way I suspect your screenshot cut the word "meeting". Harvie and Slater did actually attend a cabinet meeting about the arrangement, which they left without any agreement obviously.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
All the evidence is the other way around.
A big majority ends up with the leadership doing whatever it wants with little scrutiny. A small majority ends up with the leadership negotiating policy step by step with the most extreme in their party.
Both have problems, but the one you are more afraid of is the wrong way around.
I see your point of view and it makes sense. I hope (with very small levels of confidence) that a moderate defeat will cause the Conservative Party to get its shit together to stand a better chance of there only being a one term Labour government. The Tories have been terrible since 2016, but a public sector obsessed Labour Party (very different from 1997) will be a disaster for the country. I fear, however, that they will be in for more than a decade, and if this is the case entrepreneurial spirit in this country is well and truly fucked.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
Starmer seems to me to be what in Germany is called a Realo like the Green Ministers Annalena Baerbock (foreign secretary) and Robert Habeck (Economy Miinister). His ideals are (probably) quite Left but is driven by the idea that to get any of your policies through at all, you need to get votes, get into power and be prepared to compromise with those in the centre ground to get things done.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
But everyone will not have that attitude. And despite the gnashing of teeth and the childish hyperbolic bollox put out by Labour supporters , the Rishi government is not really that terrible (sorry to break it to you) and a Labour government is highly unlikely to be any more professional, particularly with all the second raters (that would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world) on their front bench.
All the second raters..... Just like the Tory front bench then.
Well, yes, but wait till you experience the other lot!
Sturgeon bears a lot of responsibility for the mess the SNP find themselves in right now but it is hard to see her being so politically tin-eared as to think that transitioning to a minority government requires you to upset, attack and denigrate all other parties in the parliament as your first move…
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I think this is a consequence of flatter management structures, where the business reduces the amount of senior and middle managers, and increases the scope and responsibilities of those who remain, with the tempter of a bit more money for the job. Those with any integrity recognise that they are, or will be, out of their depth with an impossible job to do, and get out when they can, leaving the less competent and/or more venal ones behind to carry on (not) steering the ship
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
But everyone will not have that attitude. And despite the gnashing of teeth and the childish hyperbolic bollox put out by Labour supporters , the Rishi government is not really that terrible (sorry to break it to you) and a Labour government is highly unlikely to be any more professional, particularly with all the second raters (that would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world) on their front bench.
I had high hopes for Rishi after Johnson and Truss, but man has he disappointed. The Rwanda nonsense of its own is enough to warrant the comment " the Rishi government is really that terrible (sorry to break it to you)".
Well I'm very 'enthusiastic' about a big Labour win.
Quelle surprise. You are a tribalist which is a blind spot for you that belies the fact that you are otherwise reasonably intelligent.
I'm not a tribalist in the sense of Labour Good Tory Bad - I've liked some Tory politicians and polices in the past, disliked some Labour ones, was not exactly mortified by GE 2010 - but the way these Tories have carried on the last few years merits a pasting and my enthusiasm is two thirds for that, one third for its necessary consequence - Labour landslide.
On the old boundaries 420 seats=losing none and adding 218 seats. The 218th target seat is Derbyshire Dales, requiring a swing of 17.43%; the majority is 18,797.
I don't think so, but it's not impossible.
17-18% is the ballpark swing we are seeing at the moment. And whilst there ought, surely, to be some swingback towards the government, we've all been saying that for a year or so and there's no sign of it yet. If anything, there is continuing swingaway.
It is crazy to imagine Labour gaining 200+ seats in one go, especially given that SKS is worthy but dull. But looked at from a different direction, it's crazy to imagine the Conservatives successfully defending 200 seats.
And something like one of those two crazy things has to happen, because the number of MPs has to total 650.
"ballpark swing" I'm thinking of a child's swing.... in a park, ... where ballgames are played.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
All the evidence is the other way around.
A big majority ends up with the leadership doing whatever it wants with little scrutiny. A small majority ends up with the leadership negotiating policy step by step with the most extreme in their party.
Both have problems, but the one you are more afraid of is the wrong way around.
I see your point of view and it makes sense. I hope (with very small levels of confidence) that a moderate defeat will cause the Conservative Party to get its shit together to stand a better chance of there only being a one term Labour government. The Tories have been terrible since 2016, but a public sector obsessed Labour Party (very different from 1997) will be a disaster for the country. I fear, however, that they will be in for more than a decade, and if this is the case entrepreneurial spirit in this country is well and truly fucked.
Remind me who was it who proclaimed "**** business"?
Has anyone on PB read The Wild Men, David Torrance, or The Men of 1924, Peter Clark. Both are about the MacDonald;s first Labour Government. Any comments on the merits or demerits of either would be appreciated.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Yet you didn't vote Tory when Labour actually was the party of Corbyn?
The ‘unaligned’ PB Tories are some of my favourites.
How dare you call me a Tory, I’ve only voted Conservative on 9 out of 11 possible occasions, and the last 2 times Jezza made me do it.
And those 11 occasions were in 2 actual elections.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
Starmer seems to me to be what in Germany is called a Realo like the Green Ministers Annalena Baerbock (foreign secretary) and Robert Habeck (Economy Miinister). His ideals are (probably) quite Left but is driven by the idea that to get any of your policies through at all, you need to get votes, get into power and be prepared to compromise with those in the centre ground to get things done.
That's quite a generous way of putting it. Others might say that this is a man willing to abandon any principle or say anything at all that he thinks will help him get elected.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Yet you didn't vote Tory when Labour actually was the party of Corbyn?
I couldn't out of conscience because the buffoon was Tory leader and the loonies had taken over the Tories.
Fair enough. Honourable call. I deduce you never gave Corbyn a chance in either 17 or 19 then. Because I doubt you'd be more averse to a strong Starmer government than a weak Corbyn one. I mean, that would still have been Jez at Number 10.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
You of all people have seen the damage wrought by the current incarnation of the Tory party, and you want more of it because you're scared of a Starmer Labour party? How anyone reasonably sane can vote for this Tory circus is mind boggling.
Assuming a Lab majority is already highly likely, this is one of a few interesting sub-plots isn't it? Plus:
- Will Con get a lower seat total than Major in 97 Hard to call
- Will Ref win any seats No. Which are their suggested seats to win? Except maybe by defection before or after the election - but I've no idea where. Is Tice going to be upstanding, bearing in mind that the Reform Party Company defines him as a "person of no significant control"?
- Will Lib Dems overtake SNP into 3rd place Probably given current events in SNP-land and in the Tory-sack, plus I hope so.
- Will Lib Dems hang on to any of their byelection gains Yes. Suggest Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, Somerton and Frome ie all of them. AFAICS all of the second places are Conservatives - how would they lose?
- Will Green win any seats Tricky. I'm not sure.
- Will Mogg (+ various others) lose their seats - Perhaps 50% will, depending on your list.
There is talk that Thangham Debonnaire will lose in Bristol. A shame as she is a cut above many Labour MPs and candidates.
And also has an awesome name. A factor not to be sniffed at in life.
Passer-by: "Oi, Tubbs! You have a mundane name!" Tubbs (thinks to self): "Hmmm, I have an idea..."
It is a great name, though possibly even better were it Debonnaire Thangham.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
Along with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.
I have sympathy for the PO people on trial giving evidence at the inquiry. They clearly know that they are deep in the shit. Some of them knew about issues for over a decade and yet carried on lying to sub post masters and getting them convicted, made bankrupt, sacked and in extremis sent to prison for crimes that not only they didn't do, but actually never happened. They must fear that anything they admit to at the inquiry can be used to help convict them later.
That said, I am not sure what the answer is. To get to the truth, with their help, would have needed immunity from prosecution, and no-one wants that (apart from those in the dock). And so we have the unsatisfactory situation of amnesia being so widespread among senior and ex-senior PO staff that UKHSA ought to be looking for novel memory deleting pathogen...
They are not in deep shit. They are facing mild embarrassment and a bit of questioning. They should be in the clink by now.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I think this is a consequence of flatter management structures, where the business reduces the amount of senior and middle managers, and increases the scope and responsibilities of those who remain, with the tempter of a bit more money for the job. Those with any integrity recognise that they are, or will be, out of their depth with an impossible job to do, and get out when they can, leaving the less competent and/or more venal ones behind to carry on (not) steering the ship
No, it isn't.
Flatter structure just means less insulating layers. In any case, there was enough of a pyramid in the PO to hold actual managerial knowledge.
In the NU10K thing, Ignorance IS Strength.
All a Proper Manager cares about is increased profit. Some entirely expendable and replaceable underlings know how the business runs. Because the Proper Manager doesn't know what is going on, they don't have moral (or in their minds legal) responsibility for anything their organisation does.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
Along with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.
I have sympathy for the PO people on trial giving evidence at the inquiry. They clearly know that they are deep in the shit. Some of them knew about issues for over a decade and yet carried on lying to sub post masters and getting them convicted, made bankrupt, sacked and in extremis sent to prison for crimes that not only they didn't do, but actually never happened. They must fear that anything they admit to at the inquiry can be used to help convict them later.
That said, I am not sure what the answer is. To get to the truth, with their help, would have needed immunity from prosecution, and no-one wants that (apart from those in the dock). And so we have the unsatisfactory situation of amnesia being so widespread among senior and ex-senior PO staff that UKHSA ought to be looking for novel memory deleting pathogen...
They are not in deep shit. They are facing mild embarrassment and a bit of questioning. They should be in the clink by now.
One of them is already whining that they are got turned down for the board of a charity.
Can you imagine the due diligence meeting on that one?
I'm still on with your Labour have got a mountain to climb just to make most GE seats
Although the Conservatives might get a right royal spanking next week, I suspect they will do nowhere near as badly as the polls are suggesting. Street and Lord T. Dan Smith of Teesworks will retain their fiefdoms and Susan Hall will run Khan close.
The polls do not reflect reality.
We will soon see. I suspect the number of mayoral contests won by the Conservatives will be 0-1.
"🌹 Can Labour win more seats at the next General Election than they did in 1997?”
This is the flip side of what I think will be the real narrative of the next General Election: Conservative losses.
Of course, the one implies the other. But it could be misleading not least because Keir Starmer is not a Tony Blair type and the circumstances in the country are very different.
The real question is whether Sunak is a Major? I suggest that to the people he is far, far, worse. My Surrey tory friend has never liked Angela Rayner until this week but she laughed her head off and in a message said that she was quite right about Sunak.
This election will not be fuelled by Tony euphoria but by vengeance on the Conservatives.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I think this is a consequence of flatter management structures, where the business reduces the amount of senior and middle managers, and increases the scope and responsibilities of those who remain, with the tempter of a bit more money for the job. Those with any integrity recognise that they are, or will be, out of their depth with an impossible job to do, and get out when they can, leaving the less competent and/or more venal ones behind to carry on (not) steering the ship
Bollocks.
I'm pretty well a computer tech ignoramus, but it was bloody obvious a decade ago, just from reading a few Computer Weekly stories, what the problem was likely to be. To remain in ignorance of it when all this was you direct managerial responsibility, even allowing for a strong dash of plain stupidity, can really only be dishonesty.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
Along with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.
I have sympathy for the PO people on trial giving evidence at the inquiry. They clearly know that they are deep in the shit. Some of them knew about issues for over a decade and yet carried on lying to sub post masters and getting them convicted, made bankrupt, sacked and in extremis sent to prison for crimes that not only they didn't do, but actually never happened. They must fear that anything they admit to at the inquiry can be used to help convict them later.
That said, I am not sure what the answer is. To get to the truth, with their help, would have needed immunity from prosecution, and no-one wants that (apart from those in the dock). And so we have the unsatisfactory situation of amnesia being so widespread among senior and ex-senior PO staff that UKHSA ought to be looking for novel memory deleting pathogen...
They are not in deep shit. They are facing mild embarrassment and a bit of questioning. They should be in the clink by now.
I think they are deep in the shit. I see that Alan Bates is pondering private prosecutions (which would be hilarious). Accepting that many think none of them will actually get put on trial, but I am not so sure. Public anger about this is not going away.
Police action will wait until after the inquiry reports (I believe) but there is clear evidence of wrong doing.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
Depends on where @Nigel_Foremain is, I guess. Is his the sort of seat that flips on a ten percent swing or a twenty percent swing?
(Sort of reverse of my calculation in 2019, when I was living in not-Romford. It was a seat that the Conservatives would only win in a landslide, and I didn't want Johnson having a landslide, because I feared a version of what came to pass. So I voted Labour to try and defend a decent enough local MP and keep any Conservative win within reasonable bounds, not because of any enthusiasm for Comrade Jez. It didn't work, even at a local level. Flip knows what I'd have done if my constituency had been a "putting Labour into government" type. I suspect that normal people don't think that much about it.)
Yes you have to know where people are voting to opine on how rational they're being. Not that it's irrational to vote for the candidate/party you prefer regardless of mental machinations. Eg I'd possibly vote LD if I were in a Con/LD marginal but I'm not 100% sure about that. Perhaps I'd just keep it simple and vote for the party I've voted for my whole life and which I'm a member of. The party of equality, internationalism and social justice. Labour. Da da da der, da da da der ...
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
Starmer seems to me to be what in Germany is called a Realo like the Green Ministers Annalena Baerbock (foreign secretary) and Robert Habeck (Economy Miinister). His ideals are (probably) quite Left but is driven by the idea that to get any of your policies through at all, you need to get votes, get into power and be prepared to compromise with those in the centre ground to get things done.
That's quite a generous way of putting it. Others might say that this is a man willing to abandon any principle or say anything at all that he thinks will help him get elected.
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
If everyone has that attitude we.get ourselves another 5 years of inch-perfect Rishi Government. Surely a Monster Raving Loony protest vote would make more sense, as would their policies.
But everyone will not have that attitude. And despite the gnashing of teeth and the childish hyperbolic bollox put out by Labour supporters , the Rishi government is not really that terrible (sorry to break it to you) and a Labour government is highly unlikely to be any more professional, particularly with all the second raters (that would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world) on their front bench.
What do you think the Sunak government is doing better on?
It might be Boris's sister's fault. Fans of the greatest docudrama in the history of television, When Boris Met Dave, will recall Rachel saying Classics was a dead easy way of getting into Oxford. Lots of places, not much competition if 90 per cent of schools do not teach it, one imagines.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I think this is a consequence of flatter management structures, where the business reduces the amount of senior and middle managers, and increases the scope and responsibilities of those who remain, with the tempter of a bit more money for the job. Those with any integrity recognise that they are, or will be, out of their depth with an impossible job to do, and get out when they can, leaving the less competent and/or more venal ones behind to carry on (not) steering the ship
Bollocks.
I'm pretty well a computer tech ignoramus, but it was bloody obvious a decade ago, just from reading a few Computer Weekly stories, what the problem was likely to be. To remain in ignorance of it when all this was you direct managerial responsibility, even allowing for a strong dash of plain stupidity, can really only be dishonesty.
In management circles of a certain type, the ultimate crime is Offensively Telling People Things.
I found this out, early in my career, when my boss pointed out that "Well, you blurted out the truth in the meeting. The Big Boss can't deny he knows now. You fucked up."
In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.
Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?
I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.
Starmer seems to me to be what in Germany is called a Realo like the Green Ministers Annalena Baerbock (foreign secretary) and Robert Habeck (Economy Miinister). His ideals are (probably) quite Left but is driven by the idea that to get any of your policies through at all, you need to get votes, get into power and be prepared to compromise with those in the centre ground to get things done.
In my shallow reading of several German based twitter accounts I follow, Baerbock seems to be getting quite a lot of the slings and arrows aimed at the coalition, particularly over Gaza. Is there general support for Israel in Germany or is it more balanced?
Off topic (for which I apologize), but some of you requested this: Marc Thiessen delivers his promised list: "Well, the results are in. And the good news is: Congress overwhelmingly approved the aid package for Ukraine by a vote of 311-112 in the House and 79-18 in the Senate. This will enable the arrival of American-made weapons — including air defense interceptors to protect Ukrainian cities from Russian bombs and missiles — that will save lives.
I didn't see any surprises, though this detail may surprise some in the UK. Far left (by American standards) Vermont senators Bernie Sanders (I) and Peter Welch(D) voted against the aid package, more because of the aid to Israel, perhaps. (The Senate combined the aid packages in a single bill, unlike the House.)
About 80 percent of the aid to Ukraine is spent in the US. And our allies have stepped up their purchases of American weapons, creating more manufacturing jobs in the US.
What an array of talent, of the 6 SNP participants the only no users are Forbes and Ewing. Not going to be him or Regan so it is a case of Forbes is only possible choice unless they pick another useless donkey is picked from remaining duds.
Ok coz @Cookie has been so persuasive on Breton cider, and because so many now persistently and plausibly hail me as the “Tristan and Isolde of Always Trying Things” I am trying Breton cider, with a crepe, in the oldest square in Quimper
Con 41.9 (+10.5) SNP 29.3 (-6.9) Lab 16.1 (+9.6) LD 8.3 (+3.9) Grn 4.3 (New) No ind as prev
Con 1682 SNP 1175 Lab 644 LD 333 Green 176
His unbroken run of by-election fails continues.
The ward has been moved out of Angus for Westminster and is in the new Arbroath and Broughty Ferry seat, which is the successor to Dundee East, one of the safest SNP seats.
Howeve rit has interesting implications for the next door Angus & Perthshire Glens seat which is a Tory target (and being contested by Stephen Kerr MSP, the former \Tory MP for Stirling)
Angus & the Glens, as well as being a great beat combo, is my seat. The SNP will need a catastrophic melt down to lose it to the Tories. I think the Unionist vote will split with non Tory unionists less willing to vote Tory, even to defeat the SNP. The irritation with the current Westminster government probably exceeds even the irritation with Holyrood, although it is close.
I am expecting an SNP hold. What I suspect has happened in that local authority seat is that the Independent was basically a Tory and his vote has favoured them. Its interesting though because Angus Council is quite finely balanced. No local elections in Scotland next week.
Interesting. My take was that the Tories flipped in Angus in 2017, and the Perthshire Glens could be pretty good for them too. Much the most SNP-inclined part of Perthshire is Perth itself (widely held to have saved Pete Wishart's bacon in '17) and that's not in this seat.
At the moment voters seem to be more irritated with Holyrood than Westminster, but that could change no doubt.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I think this is a consequence of flatter management structures, where the business reduces the amount of senior and middle managers, and increases the scope and responsibilities of those who remain, with the tempter of a bit more money for the job. Those with any integrity recognise that they are, or will be, out of their depth with an impossible job to do, and get out when they can, leaving the less competent and/or more venal ones behind to carry on (not) steering the ship
Bollocks.
I'm pretty well a computer tech ignoramus, but it was bloody obvious a decade ago, just from reading a few Computer Weekly stories, what the problem was likely to be. To remain in ignorance of it when all this was you direct managerial responsibility, even allowing for a strong dash of plain stupidity, can really only be dishonesty.
In management circles of a certain type, the ultimate crime is Offensively Telling People Things.
I found this out, early in my career, when my boss pointed out that "Well, you blurted out the truth in the meeting. The Big Boss can't deny he knows now. You fucked up."
Con 41.9 (+10.5) SNP 29.3 (-6.9) Lab 16.1 (+9.6) LD 8.3 (+3.9) Grn 4.3 (New) No ind as prev
Con 1682 SNP 1175 Lab 644 LD 333 Green 176
His unbroken run of by-election fails continues.
The ward has been moved out of Angus for Westminster and is in the new Arbroath and Broughty Ferry seat, which is the successor to Dundee East, one of the safest SNP seats.
Howeve rit has interesting implications for the next door Angus & Perthshire Glens seat which is a Tory target (and being contested by Stephen Kerr MSP, the former \Tory MP for Stirling)
Angus & the Glens, as well as being a great beat combo, is my seat. The SNP will need a catastrophic melt down to lose it to the Tories. I think the Unionist vote will split with non Tory unionists less willing to vote Tory, even to defeat the SNP. The irritation with the current Westminster government probably exceeds even the irritation with Holyrood, although it is close.
I am expecting an SNP hold. What I suspect has happened in that local authority seat is that the Independent was basically a Tory and his vote has favoured them. Its interesting though because Angus Council is quite finely balanced. No local elections in Scotland next week.
Interesting. My take was that the Tories flipped in Angus in 2017, and the Perthshire Glens could be pretty good for them too. Much the most SNP-inclined part of Perthshire is Perth itself (widely held to have saved Pete Wishart's bacon in '17) and that's not in this seat.
At the moment voters seem to be more irritated with Holyrood than Westminster, but that could change no doubt.
Hopefully Wishart gets what he deserves and is dumped. I would even be happy for a Tory to beat that clown.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I think this is a consequence of flatter management structures, where the business reduces the amount of senior and middle managers, and increases the scope and responsibilities of those who remain, with the tempter of a bit more money for the job. Those with any integrity recognise that they are, or will be, out of their depth with an impossible job to do, and get out when they can, leaving the less competent and/or more venal ones behind to carry on (not) steering the ship
Bollocks.
I'm pretty well a computer tech ignoramus, but it was bloody obvious a decade ago, just from reading a few Computer Weekly stories, what the problem was likely to be. To remain in ignorance of it when all this was you direct managerial responsibility, even allowing for a strong dash of plain stupidity, can really only be dishonesty.
In management circles of a certain type, the ultimate crime is Offensively Telling People Things.
I found this out, early in my career, when my boss pointed out that "Well, you blurted out the truth in the meeting. The Big Boss can't deny he knows now. You fucked up."
Con 41.9 (+10.5) SNP 29.3 (-6.9) Lab 16.1 (+9.6) LD 8.3 (+3.9) Grn 4.3 (New) No ind as prev
Con 1682 SNP 1175 Lab 644 LD 333 Green 176
His unbroken run of by-election fails continues.
The ward has been moved out of Angus for Westminster and is in the new Arbroath and Broughty Ferry seat, which is the successor to Dundee East, one of the safest SNP seats.
Howeve rit has interesting implications for the next door Angus & Perthshire Glens seat which is a Tory target (and being contested by Stephen Kerr MSP, the former \Tory MP for Stirling)
Angus & the Glens, as well as being a great beat combo, is my seat. The SNP will need a catastrophic melt down to lose it to the Tories. I think the Unionist vote will split with non Tory unionists less willing to vote Tory, even to defeat the SNP. The irritation with the current Westminster government probably exceeds even the irritation with Holyrood, although it is close.
I am expecting an SNP hold. What I suspect has happened in that local authority seat is that the Independent was basically a Tory and his vote has favoured them. Its interesting though because Angus Council is quite finely balanced. No local elections in Scotland next week.
Interesting. My take was that the Tories flipped in Angus in 2017, and the Perthshire Glens could be pretty good for them too. Much the most SNP-inclined part of Perthshire is Perth itself (widely held to have saved Pete Wishart's bacon in '17) and that's not in this seat.
At the moment voters seem to be more irritated with Holyrood than Westminster, but that could change no doubt.
The latest MRP polling indicated that it wasn't going to be especially close. Both the SNP and the Tories down but, if anything, the latter by more than the former. Labour and Lib Dems both up but frankly wasted votes.
Is there any value here? Forbes 2:1 maybe? If Gray is the continuity candidate… well, how many want to continue recent SNP performance?
Hard to believe he is favourite , gray and unknown, done nothing nobody but current mob are so incestuous that you can get any duffer. They were stupid enough to vote for Useless last time so anything is possible, reality and sense will not come into it.
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
I have just read the Petronella Wyatt article in the Daily Mail. There is so much ignorance and judgementalism about clinical depression. I do hope she finds some kind of peace and fulfilment.
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
I'm sure it's delicious but it looks like a urine sample, a finger bowl, and a mouldy crepe.
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
I'm sure it's delicious but it looks like a urine sample, a finger bowl, and a mouldy crepe.
Enjoy.
Looks quite charming to me. But then I am sitting here enjoying it in Quimper, under the uncertain glory of an April sky
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
Well, I adore local cider or perry from the wood in a pub garden in Herefordshire or a friend's house in Somerset, and think Abbey Dore and the Somerset Levels have lots of noom.
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
Perhaps as you develop your piece on Noom for the gazette you could entertain possible diffent areas of endeavour that contain numinosity in different countries.
UK: stones and churches
France: (some) comestibles
Germany: places of great human cruelty and suffering within living memory
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
Is Quimper not going to the dogs like Paris?
Absolutely not. It feels highly prosperous and I haven’t seen a single empty shop in the main town
It surely helps that Quimper has an exceptionally lovely centre with a sequence of charming squares and covered markets, riverside walks and the cathedral plaza at the heart of it all. This is a gorgeous town
And now I’m off to buy weird old pottery and then onwards to the wilds of CROZON
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I think this is a consequence of flatter management structures, where the business reduces the amount of senior and middle managers, and increases the scope and responsibilities of those who remain, with the tempter of a bit more money for the job. Those with any integrity recognise that they are, or will be, out of their depth with an impossible job to do, and get out when they can, leaving the less competent and/or more venal ones behind to carry on (not) steering the ship
Bollocks.
I'm pretty well a computer tech ignoramus, but it was bloody obvious a decade ago, just from reading a few Computer Weekly stories, what the problem was likely to be. To remain in ignorance of it when all this was you direct managerial responsibility, even allowing for a strong dash of plain stupidity, can really only be dishonesty.
Well, quite. As I said, anyone with integrity would have fled, or at least refused to participate in this charade. I do think it's likely that those involved were juggling many other responsibilities, and dealing with all that other stuff may well have been the attractive easy option, rather than sticking your neck above the parapet to deal with the rather obvious car crash of a situation that Horizon turned out to be. Especially when the culture of the organisation appears to be such that disagreeing with the prevailing stated opinion that there was nothing wrong with Horizon was likely to result in your removal from the organisation.
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
Perhaps as you develop your piece on Noom for the gazette you could entertain possible diffent areas of endeavour that contain numinosity in different countries.
UK: stones and churches
France: (some) comestibles
Germany: places of great human cruelty and suffering within living memory
Yes, I’ve actually wondered about this. Peak Noom in Germany is nearly always somewhere fraught with horror
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
Well, I adore local cider or perry from the wood in a pub garden in Herefordshire or a friend's house in Somerset, and think Abbey Dore and the Somerset Levels have lots of noom.
Herefordshire cider is nice. I grew up there. I recently wrote a piece on the food and drink of the county - I tried the latest artisan ciders
I’d love to say they are better than Breton, or at least as good. But I don’t think they are
Agree on noom tho. Herefordshire has tons of it and Brittany has about 2.3
I had a genius conversation with the creperie waiter just now
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Drinking Breton cider from one of those slightly porous-feeling cups is one of my most treasured childhood memories.
I didn’t understand the cups until I used one five minutes ago. They work, weirdly. Why?
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
Is Quimper not going to the dogs like Paris?
Absolutely not. It feels highly prosperous and I haven’t seen a single empty shop in the main town
It surely helps that Quimper has an exceptionally lovely centre with a sequence of charming squares and covered markets, riverside walks and the cathedral plaza at the heart of it all. This is a gorgeous town
And now I’m off to buy weird old pottery and then onwards to the wilds of CROZON
Chalk & cheese then by the sounds of it. Btw I've worked out what went on between you and your organ viz the putative "Paris to the dogs" article. Slightly reprehensible but I've decided to drop it.
Con 41.9 (+10.5) SNP 29.3 (-6.9) Lab 16.1 (+9.6) LD 8.3 (+3.9) Grn 4.3 (New) No ind as prev
Con 1682 SNP 1175 Lab 644 LD 333 Green 176
His unbroken run of by-election fails continues.
The ward has been moved out of Angus for Westminster and is in the new Arbroath and Broughty Ferry seat, which is the successor to Dundee East, one of the safest SNP seats.
Howeve rit has interesting implications for the next door Angus & Perthshire Glens seat which is a Tory target (and being contested by Stephen Kerr MSP, the former \Tory MP for Stirling)
Angus & the Glens, as well as being a great beat combo, is my seat. The SNP will need a catastrophic melt down to lose it to the Tories. I think the Unionist vote will split with non Tory unionists less willing to vote Tory, even to defeat the SNP. The irritation with the current Westminster government probably exceeds even the irritation with Holyrood, although it is close.
I am expecting an SNP hold. What I suspect has happened in that local authority seat is that the Independent was basically a Tory and his vote has favoured them. Its interesting though because Angus Council is quite finely balanced. No local elections in Scotland next week.
Interesting. My take was that the Tories flipped in Angus in 2017, and the Perthshire Glens could be pretty good for them too. Much the most SNP-inclined part of Perthshire is Perth itself (widely held to have saved Pete Wishart's bacon in '17) and that's not in this seat.
At the moment voters seem to be more irritated with Holyrood than Westminster, but that could change no doubt.
The latest MRP polling indicated that it wasn't going to be especially close. Both the SNP and the Tories down but, if anything, the latter by more than the former. Labour and Lib Dems both up but frankly wasted votes.
FWIW my theory is that while the Tory vote will crater in the Central Belt it will be much more resilient in the Tory key areas, ie, rural small-town Scotland where it is a clear SNP/Tory fight. I don't think this polling is capturing that.
Comments
(Sort of reverse of my calculation in 2019, when I was living in not-Romford. It was a seat that the Conservatives would only win in a landslide, and I didn't want Johnson having a landslide, because I feared a version of what came to pass. So I voted Labour to try and defend a decent enough local MP and keep any Conservative win within reasonable bounds, not because of any enthusiasm for Comrade Jez. It didn't work, even at a local level. Flip knows what I'd have done if my constituency had been a "putting Labour into government" type. I suspect that normal people don't think that much about it.)
A big majority ends up with the leadership doing whatever it wants with little scrutiny.
A small majority ends up with the leadership negotiating policy step by step with the most extreme in their party.
Both have problems, but the one you are more afraid of is the wrong way around.
Can we state, formally, that the NU10K thesis is proved? We have people who were on a million a year, who deny all knowledge of the organisation they were running.
I am expecting an SNP hold. What I suspect has happened in that local authority seat is that the Independent was basically a Tory and his vote has favoured them. Its interesting though because Angus Council is quite finely balanced. No local elections in Scotland next week.
Tubbs (thinks to self): "Hmmm, I have an idea..."
I've never looked at if it drives higher turnout on a like for like basis, but I may check that against this year's results.
How dare you call me a Tory, I’ve only voted Conservative on 9 out of 11 possible occasions, and the last 2 times Jezza made me do it.
Just like the Tory front bench then.
on trialgiving evidence at the inquiry. They clearly know that they are deep in the shit. Some of them knew about issues for over a decade and yet carried on lying to sub post masters and getting them convicted, made bankrupt, sacked and in extremis sent to prison for crimes that not only they didn't do, but actually never happened. They must fear that anything they admit to at the inquiry can be used to help convict them later.That said, I am not sure what the answer is. To get to the truth, with their help, would have needed immunity from prosecution, and no-one wants that (apart from those in the dock). And so we have the unsatisfactory situation of amnesia being so widespread among senior and ex-senior PO staff that UKHSA ought to be looking for novel memory deleting pathogen...
Only in the way that City beating United is 'winning the argument'.
Pure semantics to structure the coalition in such a way that the Greens could still claim short money.
His ideals are (probably) quite Left but is driven by the idea that to get any of your policies through at all, you need to get votes, get into power and be prepared to compromise with those in the centre ground to get things done.
https://news.sky.com/story/british-man-charged-with-conducting-hostile-activity-in-uk-to-benefit-russia-13123264
Not just posting on pb, apparently.
How anyone reasonably sane can vote for this Tory circus is mind boggling.
Flatter structure just means less insulating layers. In any case, there was enough of a pyramid in the PO to hold actual managerial knowledge.
In the NU10K thing, Ignorance IS Strength.
All a Proper Manager cares about is increased profit. Some entirely expendable and replaceable underlings know how the business runs. Because the Proper Manager doesn't know what is going on, they don't have moral (or in their minds legal) responsibility for anything their organisation does.
Can you imagine the due diligence meeting on that one?
This is the flip side of what I think will be the real narrative of the next General Election: Conservative losses.
Of course, the one implies the other. But it could be misleading not least because Keir Starmer is not a Tony Blair type and the circumstances in the country are very different.
The real question is whether Sunak is a Major? I suggest that to the people he is far, far, worse. My Surrey tory friend has never liked Angela Rayner until this week but she laughed her head off and in a message said that she was quite right about Sunak.
This election will not be fuelled by Tony euphoria but by vengeance on the Conservatives.
I'm pretty well a computer tech ignoramus, but it was bloody obvious a decade ago, just from reading a few Computer Weekly stories, what the problem was likely to be. To remain in ignorance of it when all this was you direct managerial responsibility, even allowing for a strong dash of plain stupidity, can really only be dishonesty.
Police action will wait until after the inquiry reports (I believe) but there is clear evidence of wrong doing.
https://x.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1783826144699277701
Ecce Romani 1 from about 1972.
And people say I have gone dottled! Hahahahaha!!
I found this out, early in my career, when my boss pointed out that "Well, you blurted out the truth in the meeting. The Big Boss can't deny he knows now. You fucked up."
Wilful Ignorance
The bad news? As the above maps show, 31 senators and House members opposed the aid that is creating good jobs for the communities they represent while stopping Russian forces massacring innocent Ukrainian men, women and children."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/25/senators-house-members-opposed-ukraine-aid/
I didn't see any surprises, though this detail may surprise some in the UK. Far left (by American standards) Vermont senators Bernie Sanders (I) and Peter Welch(D) voted against the aid package, more because of the aid to Israel, perhaps. (The Senate combined the aid packages in a single bill, unlike the House.)
About 80 percent of the aid to Ukraine is spent in the US. And our allies have stepped up their purchases of American weapons, creating more manufacturing jobs in the US.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/final-report-faqs/
Utterly shocking
At the moment voters seem to be more irritated with Holyrood than Westminster, but that could change no doubt.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdg8n7mvvjo
Another school lockdown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE6lpKkcFQY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhLFOK4BWak
Sky News.
Me: “Do you have cider?”
Waiter, shrugging: “Only one”
Pause
Waiter (still shrugging): “It is the best”
And he’s right. As is @Cookie. Breton cider is fantastic. That’s possibly the best cider I’ve ever had. If we had cider that good in Britain I might actually drink it
Enjoy.
Also: how come the cider is so much better? What do they do? Or is it one of those “in the place” things: the gastronomic equivalent of noom?
UK: stones and churches
France: (some) comestibles
Germany: places of great human cruelty and suffering within living memory
It surely helps that Quimper has an exceptionally lovely centre with a sequence of charming squares and covered markets, riverside walks and the cathedral plaza at the heart of it all. This is a gorgeous town
And now I’m off to buy weird old pottery and then onwards to the wilds of CROZON
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/national-enquirer/20240422/282548728290529
I’d love to say they are better than Breton, or at least as good. But I don’t think they are
Agree on noom tho. Herefordshire has tons of it and Brittany has about 2.3