Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
Phenomenon known as clear air turbulence, literally just a pocket of funny air in the middle of the sky, usually on the line of a weather front where two air masses meet. But there’s no obvious storm, and no warning of it except from other aircraft in the vicinity.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
No-one has yet mentioned, let alone derided, the fact that the SNP have had a chance to appoint their best chance of renewal as leader and have blown it in appointing Yousaf (52/48) and blown it again in appointing (by coronation) a steady as you go, at least he hasn't been arrested, really decent old timer who failed to deal with the hard questions at referendum time.
As a consequence of which, when K Forbes does become leader, which she will unless she joins the Tories first, it will be of a party in a position of coming second and with absolutely zero chance of independence within decades.
Betting post: I suggest she will be next leader of the SNP (60% probability). The main risks are as above, or that she will decide being a mother is more fun.
(On religion, PBers and politics anoraks generally forget that among the ordinary mainstream population, they don't go to church and don't sing unaccompanied psalms to tuneless drones, but they admire and respect those who do).
I disagree.
Right-wing parties make up a small minority of voters in Scotland according to the latest polls. There are no votes there. Kate Forbes might win Moray, some Aberdeenshire seats and errrr...
And while Labour now have a lead in Scotland, it's not like the SNP have crashed. What's even more impressive is that a SNP to Labour or Green switch is quite an easy one, ideologically speaking, yet the SNP have managed to cling onto most of their supporters.
The SNP have, quite sensibly, recognised they have lost the next couple of elections and gone for a sedate cruise into the political wilderness. They need to ruffle as few feathers as possible to retain what donations, legacies and short money they can. From there they can rebuild.
I remind you that this is the party of the motorhome, currently polling on 29% in a crowded left field!
When I (briefly) lived in Scotland, my impression was that the political centre was probably a bit further left than in England - but what really struck me was how short the distance from one edge of the mainstream to the other was.
Forbes seems well outside of that mainstream to me - and, far from prompting "renewal", I can't see how selecting her as leader whilst in government would have done anything other than shake the SNP apart.
Can Scotland really have shifted so far rightwards in the past fifteen years?
The problem in Scotland, if it is a problem, is the stifling political consensus, not division. Even the key dividing line, independence, is more about means than ends, as most Scots are nationalists. The question comes down to what a successful Scotland looks like: on its own or as part of a Union?
Kate Forbes wouldn't find it easy to come in and break up that cosy consensus.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
Phenomenon known as clear air turbulence, literally just a pocket of funny air in the middle of the sky, usually on the line of a weather front where two air masses meet. But there’s no obvious storm, and no warning of it except from other aircraft in the vicinity.
Yes, wasn't that one of the theories about the disappearing Malaysian airplane? Tho I think (IIRC) that pilot suicide is now the main suspect
As an insanely frequent flyer I can't say I'm overly fond of these reports
That one was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but we’ll probably never know for sure. It didn’t just fall out of the sky, it was a long way off course and there was evidence of it being under control for several hours before it ran out of fuel and crashed into the middle of the Indian Ocean - which is some of the most uncharted territory on the entire planet.
IMF relatively positive for the UK today with room for up to 3 rate cuts this year and reasonable growth projection against our partners. Getting to the point now that this is much more helpful to an incoming government than Sunaks electoral prospects, but it may help stymie their losses a bit
Good afternoon
I think the economy will really perform well to the next election but not because of Sunak so much, but investors seeing a 5 year period, at least, of stability under Starmer
How much it effects the polls I have no idea but it will not prevent a Starmer government with a good majority especially in view of the likely collapse of the SNP
It could prevent the election of a Starmer government. You, or anyone can’t state for certain as you just done.
Many elections with late swing show it’s just hours from opinion polls pointing to one thing, the actual result another, political perceptions can change and polls move dramatically in days and weeks, it doesn’t need months for big movement. Evidence needed? 50 days of Truss she started about 4% behind Labour, finished about 40% behind.
Besides Labour have made a HUGE political mistake. They blamed all the financial woe and voter pain on Truss, and left Rishi free to the acclaim of complete reversion the Truss mess and making UKs economic woes history with his plan. inflation and growth in a fantastic place, and interest rates and mortgages on precipice of drop too. the plan is obviously working, Reeves and Starmer will be laughed at and shred their credibility, if they try to claim the governments plan is not working or that they’ve got a better one, won’t they?
Don't know is my answer. It used to be the case that it was much easier to take away medals and Orders and Knighthoods than peerages. Is it still?
From my shallow reading Ken Clarke wasn't any more responsible than Margaret Thatcher and was possibly doing what he was told. But Thatcher in this instance has the fortune to be dead while Clarke is still alive.
No-one has yet mentioned, let alone derided, the fact that the SNP have had a chance to appoint their best chance of renewal as leader and have blown it in appointing Yousaf (52/48) and blown it again in appointing (by coronation) a steady as you go, at least he hasn't been arrested, really decent old timer who failed to deal with the hard questions at referendum time.
As a consequence of which, when K Forbes does become leader, which she will unless she joins the Tories first, it will be of a party in a position of coming second and with absolutely zero chance of independence within decades.
Betting post: I suggest she will be next leader of the SNP (60% probability). The main risks are as above, or that she will decide being a mother is more fun.
(On religion, PBers and politics anoraks generally forget that among the ordinary mainstream population, they don't go to church and don't sing unaccompanied psalms to tuneless drones, but they admire and respect those who do).
I disagree.
Right-wing parties make up a small minority of voters in Scotland according to the latest polls. There are no votes there. Kate Forbes might win Moray, some Aberdeenshire seats and errrr...
And while Labour now have a lead in Scotland, it's not like the SNP have crashed. What's even more impressive is that a SNP to Labour or Green switch is quite an easy one, ideologically speaking, yet the SNP have managed to cling onto most of their supporters.
The SNP have, quite sensibly, recognised they have lost the next couple of elections and gone for a sedate cruise into the political wilderness. They need to ruffle as few feathers as possible to retain what donations, legacies and short money they can. From there they can rebuild.
I remind you that this is the party of the motorhome, currently polling on 29% in a crowded left field!
You may be right - we shall find out. But two points arise. Your account doesn't really explain K Forbes's 48% vote against Yousaf; nor does it take account of the fact that vote switchers are wanting competence more than policy (see Starmer) and also are fond of personality, charisma and leadership (see Boris, though not now).
Betting post: I think Forbes will be next SNP leader. What do you think? I don't think there is a market on this at the moment. Perhaps there should be.
Point 1: Hmmm. I'm not sure - lots of legacy Tartan Tories? Yousaf did not come with a reputation for competence, which just leaves you with Forbes if that's what is important to you.
Point 2: I don't really follow this one. Swinney does not come with the baggage that Yousaf did and was in charge of some very tricky departments/policies under Sturgeon. Relatively competent, I'd say. There is a general dearth of charisma everywhere.
I think it might be a Ben Macpherson type figure. Suitably left wing and hearts and minds on independence.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
Phenomenon known as clear air turbulence, literally just a pocket of funny air in the middle of the sky, usually on the line of a weather front where two air masses meet. But there’s no obvious storm, and no warning of it except from other aircraft in the vicinity.
We urgently need to unwind the sector’s growing dependency on foreign students.
The graduate route should be scrapped and we must fundamentally rethink our International Education Strategy (IES), including the completely arbitrary target of attracting 600,000 foreign students pa"
What an extraordinary attitude towards a successful international service provider. Is this the second phase of the fuck business campaign?
It's export earnings too. Have they learned nothing from the Truss Debacle?
Britain has to earn to pay its way, to buy food, energy and so much more on international markets. International students are service sector exports. Providing British kids with a third-level education helps to improve productivity and the wealth of the country. It's almost like they're aiming for Britain to become a poorer, miserable, backwater.
Wow, Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 dropped about 6000 feet due to an air pocket. One person dead. Must have been incredibly scary #singaporeairlines #sq321[Video FlightRadar24]
Oh sh!t, these excursions are usually a couple of hundred feet at most, even though it seems worse in the cabin. If they dropped that far, they likely went over speed as well, plane could be a right mess. Well done to all the crew, and to Boeing for building a damn strong aeroplane.
Yesterday was one of the heaviest video days of the war. We logged 244 videos, 853 video clips. Just imagine it takes 5 minutes or so per video clip x 853 = 4265 minutes of work. Put across 3 people is about 1421 minutes of work per person. note, there are 1440 minutes in a day. https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1792878626859278807
Don't know is my answer. It used to be the case that it was much easier to take away medals and Orders and Knighthoods than peerages. Is it still?
From my shallow reading Ken Clarke wasn't any more responsible than Margaret Thatcher and was possibly doing what he was told. But Thatcher in this instance has the fortune to be dead while Clarke is still alive.
Clarke's main offence seems to be that he was insufficiently deferential to the committee rather than what he actually did at the time.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
Phenomenon known as clear air turbulence, literally just a pocket of funny air in the middle of the sky, usually on the line of a weather front where two air masses meet. But there’s no obvious storm, and no warning of it except from other aircraft in the vicinity.
Isn't there usually a warning at the last moment, even with this type of turbulence?
Sometimes, but not always, you hit shallow turbulence before the severe turbulence. If the severe was as severe as is being reported (it will take a couple of days to read out the flight recorder), the shallow might still have been pretty bad.
No-one has yet mentioned, let alone derided, the fact that the SNP have had a chance to appoint their best chance of renewal as leader and have blown it in appointing Yousaf (52/48) and blown it again in appointing (by coronation) a steady as you go, at least he hasn't been arrested, really decent old timer who failed to deal with the hard questions at referendum time.
As a consequence of which, when K Forbes does become leader, which she will unless she joins the Tories first, it will be of a party in a position of coming second and with absolutely zero chance of independence within decades.
Betting post: I suggest she will be next leader of the SNP (60% probability). The main risks are as above, or that she will decide being a mother is more fun.
(On religion, PBers and politics anoraks generally forget that among the ordinary mainstream population, they don't go to church and don't sing unaccompanied psalms to tuneless drones, but they admire and respect those who do).
I disagree.
Right-wing parties make up a small minority of voters in Scotland according to the latest polls. There are no votes there. Kate Forbes might win Moray, some Aberdeenshire seats and errrr...
And while Labour now have a lead in Scotland, it's not like the SNP have crashed. What's even more impressive is that a SNP to Labour or Green switch is quite an easy one, ideologically speaking, yet the SNP have managed to cling onto most of their supporters.
The SNP have, quite sensibly, recognised they have lost the next couple of elections and gone for a sedate cruise into the political wilderness. They need to ruffle as few feathers as possible to retain what donations, legacies and short money they can. From there they can rebuild.
I remind you that this is the party of the motorhome, currently polling on 29% in a crowded left field!
You may be right - we shall find out. But two points arise. Your account doesn't really explain K Forbes's 48% vote against Yousaf; nor does it take account of the fact that vote switchers are wanting competence more than policy (see Starmer) and also are fond of personality, charisma and leadership (see Boris, though not now).
Betting post: I think Forbes will be next SNP leader. What do you think? I don't think there is a market on this at the moment. Perhaps there should be.
Point 1: Hmmm. I'm not sure - lots of legacy Tartan Tories? Yousaf did not come with a reputation for competence, which just leaves you with Forbes if that's what is important to you.
Point 2: I don't really follow this one. Swinney does not come with the baggage that Yousaf did and was in charge of some very tricky departments/policies under Sturgeon. Relatively competent, I'd say. There is a general dearth of charisma everywhere.
I think it might be a Ben Macpherson type figure. Suitably left wing and hearts and minds on independence.
The main incompetence accusation against Swinney is the implementation of an education policy that led to worse outcomes. Not knowledgeable but as far as I am aware he ran with a policy he inherited from Labour. Maybe he could have corrected it or implemented it better but I doubt the whole charge rests with him.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
Phenomenon known as clear air turbulence, literally just a pocket of funny air in the middle of the sky, usually on the line of a weather front where two air masses meet. But there’s no obvious storm, and no warning of it except from other aircraft in the vicinity.
Isn't there usually a warning at the last moment, even with this type of turbulence?
Not really, it doesn't show up on radar as clearly as other types of turbulence. There are some efforts to improve matters using more sophisticated signal processing algorithms, but it's mostly a physical problem - you'd need something like LIDAR to detect it, and even then it would only be at very short range.
What they usually do is try to flying through weather formations most often associated with it, but that's not always possible.
No-one has yet mentioned, let alone derided, the fact that the SNP have had a chance to appoint their best chance of renewal as leader and have blown it in appointing Yousaf (52/48) and blown it again in appointing (by coronation) a steady as you go, at least he hasn't been arrested, really decent old timer who failed to deal with the hard questions at referendum time.
As a consequence of which, when K Forbes does become leader, which she will unless she joins the Tories first, it will be of a party in a position of coming second and with absolutely zero chance of independence within decades.
Betting post: I suggest she will be next leader of the SNP (60% probability). The main risks are as above, or that she will decide being a mother is more fun.
(On religion, PBers and politics anoraks generally forget that among the ordinary mainstream population, they don't go to church and don't sing unaccompanied psalms to tuneless drones, but they admire and respect those who do).
I disagree.
Right-wing parties make up a small minority of voters in Scotland according to the latest polls. There are no votes there. Kate Forbes might win Moray, some Aberdeenshire seats and errrr...
And while Labour now have a lead in Scotland, it's not like the SNP have crashed. What's even more impressive is that a SNP to Labour or Green switch is quite an easy one, ideologically speaking, yet the SNP have managed to cling onto most of their supporters.
The SNP have, quite sensibly, recognised they have lost the next couple of elections and gone for a sedate cruise into the political wilderness. They need to ruffle as few feathers as possible to retain what donations, legacies and short money they can. From there they can rebuild.
I remind you that this is the party of the motorhome, currently polling on 29% in a crowded left field!
You may be right - we shall find out. But two points arise. Your account doesn't really explain K Forbes's 48% vote against Yousaf; nor does it take account of the fact that vote switchers are wanting competence more than policy (see Starmer) and also are fond of personality, charisma and leadership (see Boris, though not now).
Betting post: I think Forbes will be next SNP leader. What do you think? I don't think there is a market on this at the moment. Perhaps there should be.
Point 1: Hmmm. I'm not sure - lots of legacy Tartan Tories? Yousaf did not come with a reputation for competence, which just leaves you with Forbes if that's what is important to you.
Point 2: I don't really follow this one. Swinney does not come with the baggage that Yousaf did and was in charge of some very tricky departments/policies under Sturgeon. Relatively competent, I'd say. There is a general dearth of charisma everywhere.
I think it might be a Ben Macpherson type figure. Suitably left wing and hearts and minds on independence.
Just to add - SNP members != SNP voters. Conservative members would do well to remember that too.
"Yet this was not the only example of creeping authoritarianism. In a separate incident, the former Greek finance minister, left-wing political theorist and pro-Palestine speaker Yanis Varoufakis was prohibited from entering German territory and connecting with public meetings in Germany by video link. Throughout these episodes, the EU was silent."
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
"Yet this was not the only example of creeping authoritarianism. In a separate incident, the former Greek finance minister, left-wing political theorist and pro-Palestine speaker Yanis Varoufakis was prohibited from entering German territory and connecting with public meetings in Germany by video link. Throughout these episodes, the EU was silent."
Under what grounds was he banned? I disagree with pretty much everything he says, but I am not sure I have heard him say anything that you would think would get him close to prohibiting him speaking i.e. he isn't advocating people take up terrorism.
"...My good use of polling um came from Courtney Kennedy at the Pew Research Center um she did a really interesting and compelling presentation on basically on why margin of error is not sufficient it's an outdated statistic so something that we've talked about before but frankly should be talking about more is that margin of error only accounts for sampling error but there are lots of other types of error that can happen in polling like measurement error non-response error things like that and so when you say if poll has a plus or minus margin of error of like three points or whatever theoretically it's supposed to be within that range 95% of the time but we know that isn't true we know for example that an average polling error for presidential election is like four points and for Senate and House elections it's even higher than that and so basically she was advocating for creating a new statistic called like margin of total error and she kind of went through a couple of different ways in which um we could go about making that and they all kind of have their problems but I think it's a really important Pursuit given that obviously there is a crisis in kind of trust in polling and institutions more broadly and that when we tell people this poll has a margin of error of only three points don't worry about it that's actually misleading because in reality an average polling error is larger than that it's uh generally about twice as large as the published margin of error for election polls so that's important in terms of people's understanding or interpretation of the polls knowing that um there is more uncertainty than is usually advertised yeah sounds like there's a lot of good information uh that hopefully we'll try to get on the podcast down the line at AAPOR..."
"...My good use of polling um came from Courtney Kennedy at the Pew Research Center um she did a really interesting and compelling presentation on basically on why margin of error is not sufficient it's an outdated statistic so something that we've talked about before but frankly should be talking about more is that margin of error only accounts for sampling error but there are lots of other types of error that can happen in polling like measurement error non-response error things like that and so when you say if poll has a plus or minus margin of error of like three points or whatever theoretically it's supposed to be within that range 95% of the time but we know that isn't true we know for example that an average polling error for presidential election is like four points and for Senate and House elections it's even higher than that and so basically she was advocating for creating a new statistic called like margin of total error and she kind of went through a couple of different ways in which um we could go about making that and they all kind of have their problems but I think it's a really important Pursuit given that obviously there is a crisis in kind of trust in polling and institutions more broadly and that when we tell people this poll has a margin of error of only three points don't worry about it that's actually misleading because in reality an average polling error is larger than that it's uh generally about twice as large as the published margin of error for election polls so that's important in terms of people's understanding or interpretation of the polls knowing that um there is more uncertainty than is usually advertised yeah sounds like there's a lot of good information uh that hopefully we'll try to get on the podcast down the line at AAPOR..."
PART 2: JEFFREY Jeffrey wrap it up for us: what was your good use of polling?
"...I would say just broadly the the sense that I got from a number of presentations about the ways that different pollsters are trying to make sure they get like a a good initial sample and are reaching hard-to-reach populations and this involved for instance the mode of sampling so pollsters sort of expanding the ways that they were get in touch with people so they might send out a letter to respondents asking to join a panel and it was like well we can have you know phone just basically different ways to take the poll once you've joined the panel like is it easier for some people to text sure younger people were like somewhat more likely to do that but interestingly there were like fascinating demographic breakdowns on like black voters were more likely to answer by phone so making sure you had a phone option for people to actually call in and respond was like important for making sure that had like a good initial sample of Americans for this panel or poll or whatever you were working on and so just kind of the different information out there about how people were trying to reach individuals and in fact this phrase was used multiple times by different presenters meet the voters where they are was a really interesting thing that you know was reassuring like you know pollsters are out there working really hard to try to get the best data they can..."
Did Venice really think that charging €5 to get into the old city at the weekend in the summer, was going to put much of a dent in the numbers visiting?
I suspect their price is out by a factor of at least ten.
The problem in the future will be developing a system which doesn't simply exclude everyone apart from the wealthy. Maybe a lottery is the answer.
I hate Venice with a passion. The whole place is a monument to wealth and greed - all the best churches are fuck off statements by the merchant family sponsoring them and all the frescos have been incompetently restored and fucked up. Harry's bar is a ripoff though a masterpiece of understatement. I think making the place exclusive to the wealthy paying 100 euro a day, and under 30s with student travel cards, is the way forward
Venice is the most beautiful city on earth - by a distance. It’s a dreamscape. I adore it
But it has become insufferable in summer: the crush is horrific. Pricing is the only way out
Have you ever been in winter? It’s magical then. I recommend early December or late January. The crowds have largely gone and you can actually be alone in some distant corners
And the sense of melancholy decaying beauty is overwhelming. The most wonderfully tragic place on earth. I give it a very very rare noom factor 9. Almost off the dial
Been early March
You have to go once because of Death in Venice and Don't look Now and Byron and Hemingway and Pound and Brideshead revisited and and and. But once is enough
At 18 million tourists a year, Venice can accommodate about 15% of all the people in the world who turn 30 every year.
Even if you restricted everyone to a single lifetime visit, the global growth in tourism means it's impossible for everyone to go.
We have to, somehow, let go of this idea that there's a list of places that everyone has to go to see.
I see that Sunak has announced that the next government after his will pay "whatever it costs" to settle the infected blood scandal, and the BBC are reporting that £10bn will be set aside.
Set aside from what? From a £46bn budget black hole to turn it into £56bn, in the very unlikely event that he hangs around?
It’s a one-time expense, so things will carry on as normal. The only real extra cost worth worrying about will be the additional interest £10bn borrowing generates.
"...My good use of polling um came from Courtney Kennedy at the Pew Research Center um she did a really interesting and compelling presentation on basically on why margin of error is not sufficient it's an outdated statistic so something that we've talked about before but frankly should be talking about more is that margin of error only accounts for sampling error but there are lots of other types of error that can happen in polling like measurement error non-response error things like that and so when you say if poll has a plus or minus margin of error of like three points or whatever theoretically it's supposed to be within that range 95% of the time but we know that isn't true we know for example that an average polling error for presidential election is like four points and for Senate and House elections it's even higher than that and so basically she was advocating for creating a new statistic called like margin of total error and she kind of went through a couple of different ways in which um we could go about making that and they all kind of have their problems but I think it's a really important Pursuit given that obviously there is a crisis in kind of trust in polling and institutions more broadly and that when we tell people this poll has a margin of error of only three points don't worry about it that's actually misleading because in reality an average polling error is larger than that it's uh generally about twice as large as the published margin of error for election polls so that's important in terms of people's understanding or interpretation of the polls knowing that um there is more uncertainty than is usually advertised yeah sounds like there's a lot of good information uh that hopefully we'll try to get on the podcast down the line at AAPOR..."
PART 2: JEFFREY Jeffrey wrap it up for us: what was your good use of polling?
"...I would say just broadly the the sense that I got from a number of presentations about the ways that different pollsters are trying to make sure they get like a a good initial sample and are reaching hard-to-reach populations and this involved for instance the mode of sampling so pollsters sort of expanding the ways that they were get in touch with people so they might send out a letter to respondents asking to join a panel and it was like well we can have you know phone just basically different ways to take the poll once you've joined the panel like is it easier for some people to text sure younger people were like somewhat more likely to do that but interestingly there were like fascinating demographic breakdowns on like black voters were more likely to answer by phone so making sure you had a phone option for people to actually call in and respond was like important for making sure that had like a good initial sample of Americans for this panel or poll or whatever you were working on and so just kind of the different information out there about how people were trying to reach individuals and in fact this phrase was used multiple times by different presenters meet the voters where they are was a really interesting thing that you know was reassuring like you know pollsters are out there working really hard to try to get the best data they can..."
The main points discussed in the text revolve around the limitations of the margin of error in polling. Courtney Kennedy from the Pew Research Center highlighted that the margin of error only accounts for sampling error, neglecting other types of errors like measurement error and non-response error. This leads to an average polling error that is larger than the published margin of error, especially in election polls. Kennedy proposed the concept of a new statistic called "margin of total error" to address this issue and improve the accuracy of polling data.
Another key insight from the text is the importance of reaching hard-to-reach populations in polling. Pollsters are exploring different sampling methods, such as sending letters to potential respondents to join a panel or offering various modes of communication like phone calls or text messages. Demographic breakdowns revealed interesting trends, such as black voters being more likely to answer by phone. The emphasis on meeting voters where they are and making efforts to obtain a good initial sample of Americans was highlighted as crucial in ensuring the quality of polling data.
Overall, the text underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding polling errors beyond just the margin of error and the significance of innovative strategies to reach diverse populations for more accurate and representative polling results.
Did Venice really think that charging €5 to get into the old city at the weekend in the summer, was going to put much of a dent in the numbers visiting?
I suspect their price is out by a factor of at least ten.
The problem in the future will be developing a system which doesn't simply exclude everyone apart from the wealthy. Maybe a lottery is the answer.
I hate Venice with a passion. The whole place is a monument to wealth and greed - all the best churches are fuck off statements by the merchant family sponsoring them and all the frescos have been incompetently restored and fucked up. Harry's bar is a ripoff though a masterpiece of understatement. I think making the place exclusive to the wealthy paying 100 euro a day, and under 30s with student travel cards, is the way forward
Venice is the most beautiful city on earth - by a distance. It’s a dreamscape. I adore it
But it has become insufferable in summer: the crush is horrific. Pricing is the only way out
Have you ever been in winter? It’s magical then. I recommend early December or late January. The crowds have largely gone and you can actually be alone in some distant corners
And the sense of melancholy decaying beauty is overwhelming. The most wonderfully tragic place on earth. I give it a very very rare noom factor 9. Almost off the dial
Been early March
You have to go once because of Death in Venice and Don't look Now and Byron and Hemingway and Pound and Brideshead revisited and and and. But once is enough
At 18 million tourists a year, Venice can accommodate about 15% of all the people in the world who turn 30 every year.
Even if you restricted everyone to a single lifetime visit, the global growth in tourism means it's impossible for everyone to go.
We have to, somehow, let go of this idea that there's a list of places that everyone has to go to see.
You have to submit a 15000 word thesis on some aspect of Venice to get your visa. It's vivaed to frustrate the AIs
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Did Venice really think that charging €5 to get into the old city at the weekend in the summer, was going to put much of a dent in the numbers visiting?
I suspect their price is out by a factor of at least ten.
The problem in the future will be developing a system which doesn't simply exclude everyone apart from the wealthy. Maybe a lottery is the answer.
A lottery is one of the options they’re now discussing.
They’ve managed to not achieve their goal while upsetting almost everyone - it’s not raised much money beyond the cost of running the scheme, the locals don’t like having to show ID themselves, and they have to fill out a permission form if friends or family want to visit.
I suspect that, when another American cruise ship turns up in port, even €50 isn’t going to persuade many of them to stay on the boat!
Now they can and should push up the price - and local businesses in Venice will stop bleating when the government gives them some of the cash
I reckon Venice would still see millions of visitors even if they charged €100 a day. Its a super-premium product
Do the maths. Venice gets 20m visitors a year. Maybe 18m of them are day trippers (the ones Venice dislikes)
Charge them €100 each and they’ll still come in numbers, but less so. Maybe that total would reduce to 10m
10m x €100 = €1bn. A massive sum. The Venetian council can give 500 small shops and cafes €1m each, annually. And spend the rest on urban improvement. Everyone wins - so it’s bound to happen
Indeed it gets better, some of those trippers will baulk at the €100 and say “well I might as well stay overnight” - they become the visitors Venice likes. They buy dinner and go to the opera etc
So hotels can also ramp up prices. More profit for Venice. They should just get on and do it
That would be roughly Disneyland pricing, which seems more than reasonable.
Exactly. They have to realise that simply being in Venice is a tremendous experience - and it is. So you’ll have to pay for it, and pay a lot
Switch it around and imagine the insane crowds if you could just walk into Disneyland - or Glasto
This will soon be tried in other places. Capri. St Tropez. Florence. Barcelona - and many more
So glad I visited Venice on my Interrail holiday in 1981.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
Zero chance of tournament trophy with that defence.
Other problem is the world class forwards don’t all fit in, as they perform best only in the positions they share with each other.
Some years ago I was on a flight from London to Calgary which hit bad turbulence. It was well-advertised, the captain warned us that planes in front of us had reported us, that it was very bad and that we should all - including crew - get strapped in right now while he tried to avoid the worst of it. The first drop was bad, but we all breathed a sigh of relief, and then the second one was really, really bad. I can't exactly recall the figures later given from the flight deck, but it was definitely multiple thousand feet. I lifted against the seatbelt, and would definitely have been on the ceiling if I wasn't strapped in. No one was injured but there were loose tablets, magazines, drinks flying everywhere. We had several minutes of repeated drops like that. There were a few screams, but oddly that wasn't so bad, it was the large numbers of people weeping and moaning that got me, because other than that the plane was essentially silent. And the creaking of the plane - every part of the aircaft seemed to be under incredible stress during and after each drops. I'm sure most of us at one time or another have been on a flight where there's applause on landing, but that was certainly the most heartfelt applause I've ever been part of.
Did Venice really think that charging €5 to get into the old city at the weekend in the summer, was going to put much of a dent in the numbers visiting?
I suspect their price is out by a factor of at least ten.
The problem in the future will be developing a system which doesn't simply exclude everyone apart from the wealthy. Maybe a lottery is the answer.
I hate Venice with a passion. The whole place is a monument to wealth and greed - all the best churches are fuck off statements by the merchant family sponsoring them and all the frescos have been incompetently restored and fucked up. Harry's bar is a ripoff though a masterpiece of understatement. I think making the place exclusive to the wealthy paying 100 euro a day, and under 30s with student travel cards, is the way forward
Venice is the most beautiful city on earth - by a distance. It’s a dreamscape. I adore it
But it has become insufferable in summer: the crush is horrific. Pricing is the only way out
Have you ever been in winter? It’s magical then. I recommend early December or late January. The crowds have largely gone and you can actually be alone in some distant corners
And the sense of melancholy decaying beauty is overwhelming. The most wonderfully tragic place on earth. I give it a very very rare noom factor 9. Almost off the dial
Been early March
You have to go once because of Death in Venice and Don't look Now and Byron and Hemingway and Pound and Brideshead revisited and and and. But once is enough
At 18 million tourists a year, Venice can accommodate about 15% of all the people in the world who turn 30 every year.
Even if you restricted everyone to a single lifetime visit, the global growth in tourism means it's impossible for everyone to go.
We have to, somehow, let go of this idea that there's a list of places that everyone has to go to see.
You have to submit a 15000 word thesis on some aspect of Venice to get your visa. It's vivaed to frustrate the AIs
And complete a captcha grid that wants you to identify all the squares with a bridge or a canal in.
Did Venice really think that charging €5 to get into the old city at the weekend in the summer, was going to put much of a dent in the numbers visiting?
I suspect their price is out by a factor of at least ten.
The problem in the future will be developing a system which doesn't simply exclude everyone apart from the wealthy. Maybe a lottery is the answer.
A lottery is one of the options they’re now discussing.
They’ve managed to not achieve their goal while upsetting almost everyone - it’s not raised much money beyond the cost of running the scheme, the locals don’t like having to show ID themselves, and they have to fill out a permission form if friends or family want to visit.
I suspect that, when another American cruise ship turns up in port, even €50 isn’t going to persuade many of them to stay on the boat!
Now they can and should push up the price - and local businesses in Venice will stop bleating when the government gives them some of the cash
I reckon Venice would still see millions of visitors even if they charged €100 a day. Its a super-premium product
Do the maths. Venice gets 20m visitors a year. Maybe 18m of them are day trippers (the ones Venice dislikes)
Charge them €100 each and they’ll still come in numbers, but less so. Maybe that total would reduce to 10m
10m x €100 = €1bn. A massive sum. The Venetian council can give 500 small shops and cafes €1m each, annually. And spend the rest on urban improvement. Everyone wins - so it’s bound to happen
Indeed it gets better, some of those trippers will baulk at the €100 and say “well I might as well stay overnight” - they become the visitors Venice likes. They buy dinner and go to the opera etc
So hotels can also ramp up prices. More profit for Venice. They should just get on and do it
That would be roughly Disneyland pricing, which seems more than reasonable.
Exactly. They have to realise that simply being in Venice is a tremendous experience - and it is. So you’ll have to pay for it, and pay a lot
Switch it around and imagine the insane crowds if you could just walk into Disneyland - or Glasto
This will soon be tried in other places. Capri. St Tropez. Florence. Barcelona - and many more
So glad I visited Venice on my Interrail holiday in 1981.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
Some years ago I was on a flight from London to Calgary which hit bad turbulence. It was well-advertised, the captain warned us that planes in front of us had reported us, that it was very bad and that we should all - including crew - get strapped in right now while he tried to avoid the worst of it. The first drop was bad, but we all breathed a sigh of relief, and then the second one was really, really bad. I can't exactly recall the figures later given from the flight deck, but it was definitely multiple thousand feet. I lifted against the seatbelt, and would definitely have been on the ceiling if I wasn't strapped in. No one was injured but there were loose tablets, magazines, drinks flying everywhere. We had several minutes of repeated drops like that. There were a few screams, but oddly that wasn't so bad, it was the large numbers of people weeping and moaning that got me, because other than that the plane was essentially silent. And the creaking of the plane - every part of the aircaft seemed to be under incredible stress during and after each drops. I'm sure most of us at one time or another have been on a flight where there's applause on landing, but that was certainly the most heartfelt applause I've ever been part of.
On Ryanair, every successful landing is greeted with a round of applause.
Don't know is my answer. It used to be the case that it was much easier to take away medals and Orders and Knighthoods than peerages. Is it still?
From my shallow reading Ken Clarke wasn't any more responsible than Margaret Thatcher and was possibly doing what he was told. But Thatcher in this instance has the fortune to be dead while Clarke is still alive.
Clarke's main offence seems to be that he was insufficiently deferential to the committee rather than what he actually did at the time.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
Zero chance of tournament trophy with that defence.
Other problem is the world class forwards don’t all fit in, as they perform best only in the positions they share with each other.
Some years ago I was on a flight from London to Calgary which hit bad turbulence. It was well-advertised, the captain warned us that planes in front of us had reported us, that it was very bad and that we should all - including crew - get strapped in right now while he tried to avoid the worst of it. The first drop was bad, but we all breathed a sigh of relief, and then the second one was really, really bad. I can't exactly recall the figures later given from the flight deck, but it was definitely multiple thousand feet. I lifted against the seatbelt, and would definitely have been on the ceiling if I wasn't strapped in. No one was injured but there were loose tablets, magazines, drinks flying everywhere. We had several minutes of repeated drops like that. There were a few screams, but oddly that wasn't so bad, it was the large numbers of people weeping and moaning that got me, because other than that the plane was essentially silent. And the creaking of the plane - every part of the aircaft seemed to be under incredible stress during and after each drops. I'm sure most of us at one time or another have been on a flight where there's applause on landing, but that was certainly the most heartfelt applause I've ever been part of.
On Ryanair, every successful landing is greeted with a round of applause.
Every unsuccessful landing is greeted by silence tho, so it balances out
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
Zero chance of tournament trophy with that defence.
Other problem is the world class forwards don’t all fit in, as they perform best only in the positions they share with each other.
Other problem is Kanes back issue.
For all the amazing talent England have stacked in attacking midfield areas, defence has been an issue for several years and even more threadbare with injured Shaw, Chillwell and Trippier. And no evidence that there is any real alternative to Kane, either in raw goal scoring at elite level or ability to hold the ball up and bring others into the game. I think its between Toney, Watkins and Solanke as backup. Calvert-Lewin won't be risked.
IMF relatively positive for the UK today with room for up to 3 rate cuts this year and reasonable growth projection against our partners. Getting to the point now that this is much more helpful to an incoming government than Sunaks electoral prospects, but it may help stymie their losses a bit
Good afternoon
I think the economy will really perform well to the next election but not because of Sunak so much, but investors seeing a 5 year period, at least, of stability under Starmer
How much it effects the polls I have no idea but it will not prevent a Starmer government with a good majority especially in view of the likely collapse of the SNP
Well, if bad things happening now, such as school closures, are being blamed on the inevitability of a Labour government, it does seem only fair to also give Labour the credit for good things happening now.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
No - the idea of “a progressive legal system” dates back to the seventies. What became the MAGA right caught on in the early nineties to the idea of taking control of the judicial system. See the Tea Party idea of only voting for politicians who delivered the judges.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
The side mostly picks itself:
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
Don't know is my answer. It used to be the case that it was much easier to take away medals and Orders and Knighthoods than peerages. Is it still?
From my shallow reading Ken Clarke wasn't any more responsible than Margaret Thatcher and was possibly doing what he was told. But Thatcher in this instance has the fortune to be dead while Clarke is still alive.
Clarke claims both ignorance of what was going on, and certainty that he couldn't have done any better. That is untenable.
...both Lord Glenarthur and Lord Patten genuinely endeavoured to assist the Inquiry. By contrast, Lord Clarke was combative: he described his natural style as seeking to challenge, and that extended to his questioning why he should have been asked to give any evidence at all to the Inquiry.450 He claimed that unless someone pointed out to him that something was going on, he had nothing to do with blood transfusion or products and that “The campaigners attributed everything to me because I later became a well-known figure.”451 He was at pains to point out his lack of involvement and lack of responsibility. He seemed to argue that any failure on the part of government did not have any effect on anybody’s health, even though he was obviously not in a position to know whether that was the case (indeed he did not even appear to be aware that people were infected with AIDS from the British blood supply, as well as that which was imported, and wondered whether Factor 8 was a pill to be taken at home).452 He thought it was “daft” that he be asked detailed questions “about events 40 years ago in a busy Government Department where this was a tiny, tiny proportion of my activity.”453 He was firmly of the view that if you stopped giving Factor 8 “you were killing some haemophiliacs” and postulated that had the decision to stop imports been taken, whilst lives would have been saved, “we” (the Government) would “have continued to this day to be reviled for condemning haemophiliacs to going back to the kind of life they’d enjoyed before this wonder treatment was devised*.”454 He did not think that there was anything the DHSS did wrong and asserted that if the Inquiry came to the conclusion that the introduction of HIV screening took too long “I would reject the conclusion.”..
Did Venice really think that charging €5 to get into the old city at the weekend in the summer, was going to put much of a dent in the numbers visiting?
I suspect their price is out by a factor of at least ten.
The problem in the future will be developing a system which doesn't simply exclude everyone apart from the wealthy. Maybe a lottery is the answer.
I hate Venice with a passion. The whole place is a monument to wealth and greed - all the best churches are fuck off statements by the merchant family sponsoring them and all the frescos have been incompetently restored and fucked up. Harry's bar is a ripoff though a masterpiece of understatement. I think making the place exclusive to the wealthy paying 100 euro a day, and under 30s with student travel cards, is the way forward
Venice is the most beautiful city on earth - by a distance. It’s a dreamscape. I adore it
But it has become insufferable in summer: the crush is horrific. Pricing is the only way out
Have you ever been in winter? It’s magical then. I recommend early December or late January. The crowds have largely gone and you can actually be alone in some distant corners
And the sense of melancholy decaying beauty is overwhelming. The most wonderfully tragic place on earth. I give it a very very rare noom factor 9. Almost off the dial
Yes I'd go in winter and try for some of that Don't Look Now atmosphere. Not this coming winter though. Tenerife beckons again. Same hotel and maybe 10 nights this time.
I've been to Venice twice. Once was in about 2005, in, let's say, September. Got there about 2pm, left about 10pm. It was a bit of a queue to get in, but nothing overwhelming. And you instantly got an impression of crowds - but as soon as you are out of St. Mark's Square, it felt like we had the place to ourselves. Down an alleyway, through a square, over a little bridge, past a forgotten church - it felt like being in a fairytale. So few people about, and beauty everywhere you look. And then down another alleyway, and gosh! there's every tourist in Italy all in one place. And then dive back into the warren again. The second was in about 2012, in June, with two kids under four in tow, in weather ranging from heavy drizzle to absolutely biblical downpour. A bit of a challenge doing it all with buggies! But again, magical, and not really overcrowded once away from St. Mark's Square. I happily concede it may have got busier in the intervening period. But I'd agree it's possibly the most amazing place I've ever been. And noomy, yes. You look across the lagoon and you can almost hear the approaching visigoths or the shout of fourteenth century traders. It's entirely there for the tourists nowadays, of course. But that must have been true for at least a century, possibly much longer, and tourist traps of that venerability somehow eschew inauthenticity.
It has got vastly worse in the last decade. Why? China
500 million Chinese have got quite rich in recent times, certainly rich enough to travel, and they have passports. They also have a pent-up desire to see the world after a century of poverty and imprisonment
China is now the world's largest "source" of tourists. And of course they all want to go the same places: Venice, Paris, London, Bangkok, New York; or Provence, Tuscany, the Alps, Mount Fuji, etc
What's more, another 500 million Indian tourists are coming down the line, as India follows the Chinese economic trajectory. And they too want to see Venice
Venice cannot handle this amount of people. Rationing by price or lottery is the only answer, and price makes the most sense as it can reimburse the businesses who lose out on custom as numbers are forced down
This was all predicted in the Spectator eight years ago
"By the end of my autumnal travels, it occurred to me that there is one solution: the Bhutanese example. You ration travel, by time and money: you start to make people pay simply to get into cities, regions, nations."
Don't know is my answer. It used to be the case that it was much easier to take away medals and Orders and Knighthoods than peerages. Is it still?
From my shallow reading Ken Clarke wasn't any more responsible than Margaret Thatcher and was possibly doing what he was told. But Thatcher in this instance has the fortune to be dead while Clarke is still alive.
Clarke's main offence seems to be that he was insufficiently deferential to the committee rather than what he actually did at the time.
I'm not sure that's true - particularly as he was Health Minister in the early 80s, and blood transfusion, the import of blood products, and the associated risks, were matters of public debate back then.
The tone of government policy over the next three decades seems to have been set by his attitude.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
The side mostly picks itself:
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
Yes, but its those coming off the bench. I don't know if Gallagher is in. Apparently Curtis Jones, Mainoo, Bowen, Wharton and Eze are definitely in. No Rashford, Henderson, Philips and Sterling (all for good reason, but Southgate has stuck with them in the past).
The likes of Branthwaite, Colwill, Guehi and Quansah are backup defenders.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
Zero chance of tournament trophy with that defence.
Other problem is the world class forwards don’t all fit in, as they perform best only in the positions they share with each other.
“Both BBC and ITV showed the Euro 2020 final defeat to Italy – the ITV curse is stronger than the BBC good luck charm, it seems. So expect Gareth Southgate’s side to get off to a flying start before it all comes crashing down in the third against Slovenia on ITV.
“If that doesn’t fatally wound them the Three Lions would have to run an ITV gauntlet for almost the entire knockout phase. The channel have the rights to show England in the last 16 and the semi-final before sharing the final with the BBC again if they get that far.
They couldn't even get the tense right. Should have been "fell". Fieldwork 8th-14th May. There have already been 9 more GB polls published with more recent fieldwork than that IPSOS poll.
It's only a poll ....nothing to get exited over unless your are Labour and have been out if power for 14 yrs. The Tories are going to lose, its just a question of by how much.
Give it a year or two and Labour will be in the shit big time. Starmer is weak and says and does anything to please...
Remember the hand of Mandleson is bound to behind what Labour are doing.... and saying....
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
Why does it matter "who came first" if whatever it is is a bad idea?
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
The side mostly picks itself:
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
Yes, but its those coming off the bench. I don't know if Gallagher is in. Apparently Curtis Jones, Mainoo, Bowen, Wharton and Eze are definitely in. No Rashford, Henderson, Philips and Sterling (all for good reason, but Southgate has stuck with them in the past).
The likes of Branthwaite, Colwill, Guehi and Quansah are backup defenders.
They couldn't even get the tense right. Should have been "fell". Fieldwork 8th-14th May. There have already been 9 more GB polls published with more recent fieldwork than that IPSOS poll.
It's only a poll ....nothing to get exited over unless your are Labour and have been out if power for 14 yrs. The Tories are going to lose, its just a question of by how much.
Give it a year or two and Labour will be in the shit big time. Starmer is weak and says and does anything to please...
Remember the hand of Mandleson is bound to behind what Labour are doing.... and saying....
I'm going more with the Big G analysis. The biggest economic problems are sorting themselves out. Simple stability will count for a lot. Energy prices will trend downwards. Like the last one, the incoming Labour government will have a lot of wiggle room to make bad decisions in.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
You are, of course, correct, but the evidence of the opinion polls is that decisions have already been made. So what is Rishi's master plan on immigration? I'd suggest we look past the small boats and Rwanda and instead look at student visas, which is where this sub-thread started. The trouble is, I'm not sure the voter on the Clapham omnibus is too exercised about foreign students.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
The side mostly picks itself:
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
Yes, but its those coming off the bench. I don't know if Gallagher is in. Apparently Curtis Jones, Mainoo, Bowen, Wharton and Eze are definitely in. No Rashford, Henderson, Philips and Sterling (all for good reason, but Southgate has stuck with them in the past).
The likes of Branthwaite, Colwill, Guehi and Quansah are backup defenders.
They are saying its about a 30 man squad to be trimmed to 26.
Wharton and Quansah won't make the 26. Bowen and Eze will only play the third group game if we are already qualified. Branthwaite or Guehi will be third choice CB so fair chance of playing given Stones and Maguires injury records.
Rashford and Sterling definitely fit in the category of think they should be playing despite all evidence to the contrary. Miles behind Palmer for the last attacking slot.
IMF relatively positive for the UK today with room for up to 3 rate cuts this year and reasonable growth projection against our partners. Getting to the point now that this is much more helpful to an incoming government than Sunaks electoral prospects, but it may help stymie their losses a bit
Good afternoon
I think the economy will really perform well to the next election but not because of Sunak so much, but investors seeing a 5 year period, at least, of stability under Starmer
How much it effects the polls I have no idea but it will not prevent a Starmer government with a good majority especially in view of the likely collapse of the SNP
It could prevent the election of a Starmer government. You, or anyone can’t state for certain as you just done.
Many elections with late swing show it’s just hours from opinion polls pointing to one thing, the actual result another, political perceptions can change and polls move dramatically in days and weeks, it doesn’t need months for big movement. Evidence needed? 50 days of Truss she started about 4% behind Labour, finished about 40% behind.
Besides Labour have made a HUGE political mistake. They blamed all the financial woe and voter pain on Truss, and left Rishi free to the acclaim of complete reversion the Truss mess and making UKs economic woes history with his plan. inflation and growth in a fantastic place, and interest rates and mortgages on precipice of drop too. the plan is obviously working, Reeves and Starmer will be laughed at and shred their credibility, if they try to claim the governments plan is not working or that they’ve got a better one, won’t they?
That's some epic straw-clutching at work.
Labour are 20 points or more ahead and somehow a couple of months of "good news" is going to wipe that out - seriously? In 1997, the economy was foing very well as I recall but it didn't save the Conservatives from a heavy defeat - why should it now?
I don't quite know what has led to this damascene conversion to being a fan of Rishi Sunak and as for this "conservatism" you were going on about the other day, where is it in the current incarnation of the Conservative Party? Where will it be IF they get re-elected?
"AI-enhanced video evidence is banned by court The legal proceedings concern Joshua Puloka, 46, accused of fatally shooting three people and injuring two at a bar near Seattle in 2021
A Washington state judge has ruled against the admission of “AI-enhanced” video evidence in a triple homicide case, a decision that underscores the skepticism around the belief that AI filters can uncover hidden visual information. King County’s Judge Leroy McCullough articulated in his recent decision that the AI technology employed utilizes “opaque methods to represent what the AI model ‘thinks’ should be shown,” as reported by NBC News on Tuesday.
“This Court finds that admission of this Al-enhanced evidence would lead to a confusion of the issues and a muddling of eyewitness testimony, and could lead to a time-consuming trial within a trial about the non-peer-reviewable-process used by the AI model,” McCullough stated."
What is striking is Zahawi weighing in against Vennells, weeks after owning up to paying a million quid fine and 4m in tax after a long and unsuccessful campaign of legal bullying of his critics. It is like lord Greensill of Mone being rewarded with a peerage and the foreign sec gig. Both the case itself and the commentary are built on the bedrock of failing upwards. And here's lord clarke of imperial tobacco pooh poohing the notion that the s of s for health should concern himself with the actual health of the nation. It's enough to make a chap reconsider his voting habits.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
You are, of course, correct, but the evidence of the opinion polls is that decisions have already been made. So what is Rishi's master plan on immigration? I'd suggest we look past the small boats and Rwanda and instead look at student visas, which is where this sub-thread started. The trouble is, I'm not sure the voter on the Clapham omnibus is too exercised about foreign students.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
Round me, people have made a direct link between students and the housing crisis. A very large proportion of all new apartments are student accommodation (AKA Scandi prison cells).
This only really effects Uni cities though. The election will be won in the suburbs/towns.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
The side mostly picks itself:
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
Yes, but its those coming off the bench. I don't know if Gallagher is in. Apparently Curtis Jones, Mainoo, Bowen, Wharton and Eze are definitely in. No Rashford, Henderson, Philips and Sterling (all for good reason, but Southgate has stuck with them in the past).
The likes of Branthwaite, Colwill, Guehi and Quansah are backup defenders.
They are saying its about a 30 man squad to be trimmed to 26.
Wharton and Quansah won't make the 26. Bowen and Eze will only play the third group game if we are already qualified. Branthwaite or Guehi will be third choice CB so fair chance of playing given Stones and Maguires injury records.
Rashford and Sterling definitely fit in the category of think they should be playing despite all evidence to the contrary. Miles behind Palmer for the last attacking slot.
I am surprised one of James or Chilwell aren't going as a backup. Despite injury / form, they have always been reliable for England and after Ben White's screaming match with Holland means he will never be picked whatever he does for Arsenal. So in terms of experienced defenders as backup, that means Shaw, who apparently at best will only be fit for knockout rounds.
If England get an injury / suspension or two, young stars will have be called upon, where as in the past Southgate has always gone with the same core of experienced players like Henderson (despite not being anywhere near the best in his position).
"...My good use of polling um came from Courtney Kennedy at the Pew Research Center um she did a really interesting and compelling presentation on basically on why margin of error is not sufficient it's an outdated statistic so something that we've talked about before but frankly should be talking about more is that margin of error only accounts for sampling error but there are lots of other types of error that can happen in polling like measurement error non-response error things like that and so when you say if poll has a plus or minus margin of error of like three points or whatever theoretically it's supposed to be within that range 95% of the time but we know that isn't true we know for example that an average polling error for presidential election is like four points and for Senate and House elections it's even higher than that and so basically she was advocating for creating a new statistic called like margin of total error and she kind of went through a couple of different ways in which um we could go about making that and they all kind of have their problems but I think it's a really important Pursuit given that obviously there is a crisis in kind of trust in polling and institutions more broadly and that when we tell people this poll has a margin of error of only three points don't worry about it that's actually misleading because in reality an average polling error is larger than that it's uh generally about twice as large as the published margin of error for election polls so that's important in terms of people's understanding or interpretation of the polls knowing that um there is more uncertainty than is usually advertised yeah sounds like there's a lot of good information uh that hopefully we'll try to get on the podcast down the line at AAPOR..."
PART 2: JEFFREY Jeffrey wrap it up for us: what was your good use of polling?
"...I would say just broadly the the sense that I got from a number of presentations about the ways that different pollsters are trying to make sure they get like a a good initial sample and are reaching hard-to-reach populations and this involved for instance the mode of sampling so pollsters sort of expanding the ways that they were get in touch with people so they might send out a letter to respondents asking to join a panel and it was like well we can have you know phone just basically different ways to take the poll once you've joined the panel like is it easier for some people to text sure younger people were like somewhat more likely to do that but interestingly there were like fascinating demographic breakdowns on like black voters were more likely to answer by phone so making sure you had a phone option for people to actually call in and respond was like important for making sure that had like a good initial sample of Americans for this panel or poll or whatever you were working on and so just kind of the different information out there about how people were trying to reach individuals and in fact this phrase was used multiple times by different presenters meet the voters where they are was a really interesting thing that you know was reassuring like you know pollsters are out there working really hard to try to get the best data they can..."
The main points discussed in the text revolve around the limitations of the margin of error in polling. Courtney Kennedy from the Pew Research Center highlighted that the margin of error only accounts for sampling error, neglecting other types of errors like measurement error and non-response error. This leads to an average polling error that is larger than the published margin of error, especially in election polls. Kennedy proposed the concept of a new statistic called "margin of total error" to address this issue and improve the accuracy of polling data.
Another key insight from the text is the importance of reaching hard-to-reach populations in polling. Pollsters are exploring different sampling methods, such as sending letters to potential respondents to join a panel or offering various modes of communication like phone calls or text messages. Demographic breakdowns revealed interesting trends, such as black voters being more likely to answer by phone. The emphasis on meeting voters where they are and making efforts to obtain a good initial sample of Americans was highlighted as crucial in ensuring the quality of polling data.
Overall, the text underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding polling errors beyond just the margin of error and the significance of innovative strategies to reach diverse populations for more accurate and representative polling results.
This is true, but it's been true for a very long time!
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
Why does it matter "who came first" if whatever it is is a bad idea?
Indeed. What we need is legislators of vision combined with the skills to build a consensus to the changes they want to make.
“Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions” - the law should *follow* the consensus of society, not be used to hammer change against the will of the electorate.
While the latter might seem attractive, it is, fundamentally trying to do an end run round the democratic process. Doing so opens the door to Trumpism.
Don't know is my answer. It used to be the case that it was much easier to take away medals and Orders and Knighthoods than peerages. Is it still?
From my shallow reading Ken Clarke wasn't any more responsible than Margaret Thatcher and was possibly doing what he was told. But Thatcher in this instance has the fortune to be dead while Clarke is still alive.
Clarke claims both ignorance of what was going on, and certainty that he couldn't have done any better. That is untenable.
...both Lord Glenarthur and Lord Patten genuinely endeavoured to assist the Inquiry. By contrast, Lord Clarke was combative: he described his natural style as seeking to challenge, and that extended to his questioning why he should have been asked to give any evidence at all to the Inquiry.450 He claimed that unless someone pointed out to him that something was going on, he had nothing to do with blood transfusion or products and that “The campaigners attributed everything to me because I later became a well-known figure.”451 He was at pains to point out his lack of involvement and lack of responsibility. He seemed to argue that any failure on the part of government did not have any effect on anybody’s health, even though he was obviously not in a position to know whether that was the case (indeed he did not even appear to be aware that people were infected with AIDS from the British blood supply, as well as that which was imported, and wondered whether Factor 8 was a pill to be taken at home).452 He thought it was “daft” that he be asked detailed questions “about events 40 years ago in a busy Government Department where this was a tiny, tiny proportion of my activity.”453 He was firmly of the view that if you stopped giving Factor 8 “you were killing some haemophiliacs” and postulated that had the decision to stop imports been taken, whilst lives would have been saved, “we” (the Government) would “have continued to this day to be reviled for condemning haemophiliacs to going back to the kind of life they’d enjoyed before this wonder treatment was devised*.”454 He did not think that there was anything the DHSS did wrong and asserted that if the Inquiry came to the conclusion that the introduction of HIV screening took too long “I would reject the conclusion.”..
*His assertion is actually untrue.
I think people conflate two different accusations against Clarke.
One is he doesn't see the point of the inquiry and why he should be answerable for the dreadful treatment of blood transfusion patients. He lacks any introspection or empathy for the victims. On that point guilty as charged in my view.
The other point is whether Clarke has particular responsibility for not protecting blood transfusion patients in the first place and for preventing them getting justice and compensation after they were infected. And because of this he should be called out. I am not so sure about this. The first would lie more with NHS processes. Several other healthcare systems allowed contaminated blood. It looks like Margaret Thatcher was the main obstacle to the victims getting justice and compensation, not Clarke, her junior health minister. But I haven't read enough to be sure.
"AI-enhanced video evidence is banned by court The legal proceedings concern Joshua Puloka, 46, accused of fatally shooting three people and injuring two at a bar near Seattle in 2021
A Washington state judge has ruled against the admission of “AI-enhanced” video evidence in a triple homicide case, a decision that underscores the skepticism around the belief that AI filters can uncover hidden visual information. King County’s Judge Leroy McCullough articulated in his recent decision that the AI technology employed utilizes “opaque methods to represent what the AI model ‘thinks’ should be shown,” as reported by NBC News on Tuesday.
“This Court finds that admission of this Al-enhanced evidence would lead to a confusion of the issues and a muddling of eyewitness testimony, and could lead to a time-consuming trial within a trial about the non-peer-reviewable-process used by the AI model,” McCullough stated."
Looks like the defence wanted to change the video of the incident. Bizarre that they thought it could be accepted but its America so worth a chance I guess.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
You are, of course, correct, but the evidence of the opinion polls is that decisions have already been made. So what is Rishi's master plan on immigration? I'd suggest we look past the small boats and Rwanda and instead look at student visas, which is where this sub-thread started. The trouble is, I'm not sure the voter on the Clapham omnibus is too exercised about foreign students.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
Round me, people have made a direct link between students and the housing crisis. A very large proportion of all new apartments are student accommodation (AKA Scandi prison cells).
This only really effects Uni cities though. The election will be won in the suburbs/towns.
Hm - I think it's a bit more complex than that. Surely building new purpose-built student accommodation, in, to give a local example, Manchester City Centre, frees up family housing in Fallowfield and Withington? Purpose built student accommodation may be unromantic, but it strikes me as a reasonably efficient way of increasing the housing supply.
EDIT: other cities'c omparisons are available, of course. I could have substituted Newcastle/Leeds/Liverpool/Sheffield City Centre for Manchester City Centre and Jesmond/Headingley/Broomhill/Mossley Hill for Fallowfield and Withington.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
You are, of course, correct, but the evidence of the opinion polls is that decisions have already been made. So what is Rishi's master plan on immigration? I'd suggest we look past the small boats and Rwanda and instead look at student visas, which is where this sub-thread started. The trouble is, I'm not sure the voter on the Clapham omnibus is too exercised about foreign students.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
Round me, people have made a direct link between students and the housing crisis. A very large proportion of all new apartments are student accommodation (AKA Scandi prison cells).
This only really effects Uni cities though. The election will be won in the suburbs/towns.
My understanding the drive behind all this uni housing is from private equity firms having got in the game and who see it as easy ROI.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
No - the idea of “a progressive legal system” dates back to the seventies. What became the MAGA right caught on in the early nineties to the idea of taking control of the judicial system. See the Tea Party idea of only voting for politicians who delivered the judges.
The right were on this long before MAGA and the Tea Party. The Federalist Society was formed in 1982, for example. But this goes back to arguments over desegregation in the 1950s!
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
The side mostly picks itself:
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
Yes, but its those coming off the bench. I don't know if Gallagher is in. Apparently Curtis Jones, Mainoo, Bowen, Wharton and Eze are definitely in. No Rashford, Henderson, Philips and Sterling (all for good reason, but Southgate has stuck with them in the past).
The likes of Branthwaite, Colwill, Guehi and Quansah are backup defenders.
They are saying its about a 30 man squad to be trimmed to 26.
Wharton and Quansah won't make the 26. Bowen and Eze will only play the third group game if we are already qualified. Branthwaite or Guehi will be third choice CB so fair chance of playing given Stones and Maguires injury records.
Rashford and Sterling definitely fit in the category of think they should be playing despite all evidence to the contrary. Miles behind Palmer for the last attacking slot.
I am surprised one of James or Chilwell aren't going as a backup. Despite injury / form, they have always been reliable for England and after Ben White's screaming match with Holland means he will never be picked whatever he does for Arsenal. So in terms of experienced defenders as backup, that means Shaw, who apparently at best will only be fit for knockout rounds.
If England get an injury / suspension or two, young stars will have be called upon, where as in the past Southgate has always gone with the same core of experienced players like Henderson (despite not being anywhere near the best in his position).
James has not played 90 mins in over a year and only 9 times since the start of 2023. We have Walker, Trippier, Arnold and if somehow none are available Gomez and Stones have also played club RB at elite level. No brainer to leave him out.
Chilwell would be closer to selection, could have gone either way.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
No - the idea of “a progressive legal system” dates back to the seventies. What became the MAGA right caught on in the early nineties to the idea of taking control of the judicial system. See the Tea Party idea of only voting for politicians who delivered the judges.
The right were on this long before MAGA and the Tea Party. The Federalist Society was formed in 1982, for example. But this goes back to arguments over desegregation in the 1950s!
"Cristiano Ronaldo has been included in Portugal's Euro 2024 squad ahead of his 11th major tournament. The 39-year-old Al Nassr forward is joined by 41-year-old Porto defender Pep as the two veterans who played in Portugal's victory at Euro 2016."
Despite Ronaldo not being anywhere near the player he was, you have to give it to him, staying in such shape / form for over 20 years and more wealth than he can ever spend, yet he is still in tip top condition.
I see England provisional euro squad has basically been leaked well ahead of the announcement. Some interesting choices in there. A lot more exciting younger players than I expected.
26 man squads. Lots of players going to have no or minimal time actually playing. Better to have youngsters happy to be there and just soak in some experience than older players, who might think they should be playing and/or know that they will never be an England regular due to age and the players in possession.
Its more expansive / braver than that. If the leaks are correct, there is going to be quite a bit of game time for youngsters and those without much experience. Its quite un-Southgate like.
The side mostly picks itself:
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
Yes, but its those coming off the bench. I don't know if Gallagher is in. Apparently Curtis Jones, Mainoo, Bowen, Wharton and Eze are definitely in. No Rashford, Henderson, Philips and Sterling (all for good reason, but Southgate has stuck with them in the past).
The likes of Branthwaite, Colwill, Guehi and Quansah are backup defenders.
They are saying its about a 30 man squad to be trimmed to 26.
Wharton and Quansah won't make the 26. Bowen and Eze will only play the third group game if we are already qualified. Branthwaite or Guehi will be third choice CB so fair chance of playing given Stones and Maguires injury records.
Rashford and Sterling definitely fit in the category of think they should be playing despite all evidence to the contrary. Miles behind Palmer for the last attacking slot.
I am surprised one of James or Chilwell aren't going as a backup. Despite injury / form, they have always been reliable for England and after Ben White's screaming match with Holland means he will never be picked whatever he does for Arsenal. So in terms of experienced defenders as backup, that means Shaw, who apparently at best will only be fit for knockout rounds.
If England get an injury / suspension or two, young stars will have be called upon, where as in the past Southgate has always gone with the same core of experienced players like Henderson (despite not being anywhere near the best in his position).
James has not played 90 mins in over a year and only 9 times since the start of 2023. We have Walker, Trippier, Arnold and if somehow none are available Gomez and Stones have also played club RB at elite level. No brainer to leave him out.
Chilwell would be closer to selection, could have gone either way.
I don't think Gomez is in and very quiet on Arnold (they have leaked the other Liverpool players who are in already). Trippier has also been injured for half the season. I think its Colwill (who has also been injured) that can play left back if required.
"Cristiano Ronaldo has been included in Portugal's Euro 2024 squad ahead of his 11th major tournament. The 39-year-old Al Nassr forward is joined by 41-year-old Porto defender Pep as the two veterans who played in Portugal's victory at Euro 2016."
Despite Ronaldo not being anywhere near the player he was, you have to give it to him, staying in such shape / form for over 20 years and more wealth than he can ever spend, yet he is still in tip top condition.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
Why does it matter "who came first" if whatever it is is a bad idea?
It's simply wrong, though.
Roe v Wade, for example, was a bipartisan decision by a majority Republican appointed court. That one of Eisenhower's appointments turned out a leading liberal on the court reinforces the point.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
You are, of course, correct, but the evidence of the opinion polls is that decisions have already been made. So what is Rishi's master plan on immigration? I'd suggest we look past the small boats and Rwanda and instead look at student visas, which is where this sub-thread started. The trouble is, I'm not sure the voter on the Clapham omnibus is too exercised about foreign students.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
Round me, people have made a direct link between students and the housing crisis. A very large proportion of all new apartments are student accommodation (AKA Scandi prison cells).
This only really effects Uni cities though. The election will be won in the suburbs/towns.
Hm - I think it's a bit more complex than that. Surely building new purpose-built student accommodation, in, to give a local example, Manchester City Centre, frees up family housing in Fallowfield and Withington? Purpose built student accommodation may be unromantic, but it strikes me as a reasonably efficient way of increasing the housing supply.
EDIT: other cities'c omparisons are available, of course. I could have substituted Newcastle/Leeds/Liverpool/Sheffield City Centre for Manchester City Centre and Jesmond/Headingley/Broomhill/Mossley Hill for Fallowfield and Withington.
Depends what your reference timescale is, and how fast the student population is growing.
Edinburgh is building accommodation incredibly fast - every patch of former industrial ground between Princes Street and the Shore. But that construction is to accommodate the student letting industry, not to provide homes to local people who are competing for the existing tenements. There is an opportunity cost for each patch of land.
I don't think many PBers understand what is going on in the cities, which is where the housing crisis exists. Supply is one thing - but it's a supply of rental and short term lets for landlords.
Don't know is my answer. It used to be the case that it was much easier to take away medals and Orders and Knighthoods than peerages. Is it still?
From my shallow reading Ken Clarke wasn't any more responsible than Margaret Thatcher and was possibly doing what he was told. But Thatcher in this instance has the fortune to be dead while Clarke is still alive.
Clarke claims both ignorance of what was going on, and certainty that he couldn't have done any better. That is untenable.
...both Lord Glenarthur and Lord Patten genuinely endeavoured to assist the Inquiry. By contrast, Lord Clarke was combative: he described his natural style as seeking to challenge, and that extended to his questioning why he should have been asked to give any evidence at all to the Inquiry.450 He claimed that unless someone pointed out to him that something was going on, he had nothing to do with blood transfusion or products and that “The campaigners attributed everything to me because I later became a well-known figure.”451 He was at pains to point out his lack of involvement and lack of responsibility. He seemed to argue that any failure on the part of government did not have any effect on anybody’s health, even though he was obviously not in a position to know whether that was the case (indeed he did not even appear to be aware that people were infected with AIDS from the British blood supply, as well as that which was imported, and wondered whether Factor 8 was a pill to be taken at home).452 He thought it was “daft” that he be asked detailed questions “about events 40 years ago in a busy Government Department where this was a tiny, tiny proportion of my activity.”453 He was firmly of the view that if you stopped giving Factor 8 “you were killing some haemophiliacs” and postulated that had the decision to stop imports been taken, whilst lives would have been saved, “we” (the Government) would “have continued to this day to be reviled for condemning haemophiliacs to going back to the kind of life they’d enjoyed before this wonder treatment was devised*.”454 He did not think that there was anything the DHSS did wrong and asserted that if the Inquiry came to the conclusion that the introduction of HIV screening took too long “I would reject the conclusion.”..
*His assertion is actually untrue.
I think people conflate two different accusations against Clarke.
One is he doesn't see the point of the inquiry and why he should be answerable for the dreadful treatment of blood transfusion patients. He lacks any introspection or empathy for the victims. On that point guilty as charged in my view.
The other point is whether Clarke has particular responsibility for not protecting blood transfusion patients in the first place and for preventing them getting justice and compensation after they were infected. And because of this he should be called out. I am not so sure about this. The first would lie more with NHS processes. Several other healthcare systems allowed contaminated blood. It looks like Margaret Thatcher was the main obstacle to the victims getting justice and compensation, not Clarke, her junior health minister. But I haven't read enough to be sure.
Compensation was a later argument when he was Health Secretary rather then Health Minister in the early 80s
But his combination of incuriosity and certainty regarding the underlying facts is characteristic of his time in both posts.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
Why does it matter "who came first" if whatever it is is a bad idea?
It's simply wrong, though.
Roe v Wade, for example, was a bipartisan decision by a majority Republican appointed court. That one of Eisenhower's appointments turned out a leading liberal on the court reinforces the point.
Nevertheless it was an example of legal activism. Lawyers sought out the case with the intention of changing the law.
IMF relatively positive for the UK today with room for up to 3 rate cuts this year and reasonable growth projection against our partners. Getting to the point now that this is much more helpful to an incoming government than Sunaks electoral prospects, but it may help stymie their losses a bit
Good afternoon
I think the economy will really perform well to the next election but not because of Sunak so much, but investors seeing a 5 year period, at least, of stability under Starmer
How much it effects the polls I have no idea but it will not prevent a Starmer government with a good majority especially in view of the likely collapse of the SNP
It could prevent the election of a Starmer government. You, or anyone can’t state for certain as you just done.
Many elections with late swing show it’s just hours from opinion polls pointing to one thing, the actual result another, political perceptions can change and polls move dramatically in days and weeks, it doesn’t need months for big movement. Evidence needed? 50 days of Truss she started about 4% behind Labour, finished about 40% behind.
Besides Labour have made a HUGE political mistake. They blamed all the financial woe and voter pain on Truss, and left Rishi free to the acclaim of complete reversion the Truss mess and making UKs economic woes history with his plan. inflation and growth in a fantastic place, and interest rates and mortgages on precipice of drop too. the plan is obviously working, Reeves and Starmer will be laughed at and shred their credibility, if they try to claim the governments plan is not working or that they’ve got a better one, won’t they?
That's some epic straw-clutching at work.
Labour are 20 points or more ahead and somehow a couple of months of "good news" is going to wipe that out - seriously? In 1997, the economy was foing very well as I recall but it didn't save the Conservatives from a heavy defeat - why should it now?
I don't quite know what has led to this damascene conversion to being a fan of Rishi Sunak and as for this "conservatism" you were going on about the other day, where is it in the current incarnation of the Conservative Party? Where will it be IF they get re-elected?
“Epic straw clutching” going on? Let me tell you about it.
People believe what they want to happen will happen, cling to it like comfort blankets often in the face of reality. But the reality here is when you ask yourself, which party is going to be gaslighting the voters on true state of the economy, from here on in? There can only be the one honest answer to that one.
Wages up, inflation destroyed, growth going gangbusters, interest rates and mortgage costs on edge of precipice and coming down, one party committed to tax cuts, the other uncommitted.
Apparently none of this is going to make a slight difference 😂 the election result already long decided 😂 late swings never happen in politics 🤣
When it comes to Election Day, all the people who want Conservatism has to decide if they will get Conservatism if they vote Labour and Labour gets in. You are trying to make out General Elections are decided like a beauty contest - not long held ideas - or merely a referendum on a governments performance, nothing else. It doesn’t work like that. The actual campaign that moves all the votes around, so the result merely slips into an historic pattern, could turn into a massive referendum on wether electing a Labour government and their plans, will make things worse or better.
Considering the polling shows a different thing to what is normal movement GE to GE, considering elections are decided or influenced by the economy, and by not considering an election campaign not a referendum on the governments performance but on wether all Labours plans can make things better or worse, your conviction of a Labour majority is bizarrely complacent. 🤷♀️
5 Grandchildren who went to court after being left a small amount in the Grandads will as he was disappointed they rarely visited have lost and been left with a large bill.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
You are, of course, correct, but the evidence of the opinion polls is that decisions have already been made. So what is Rishi's master plan on immigration? I'd suggest we look past the small boats and Rwanda and instead look at student visas, which is where this sub-thread started. The trouble is, I'm not sure the voter on the Clapham omnibus is too exercised about foreign students.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
Round me, people have made a direct link between students and the housing crisis. A very large proportion of all new apartments are student accommodation (AKA Scandi prison cells).
This only really effects Uni cities though. The election will be won in the suburbs/towns.
Durham is a really interesting one. I think someone who posts here regularly lives there? So may be able to tell us more. But as I understand it, the university is the same size as the town, i.e. it goes from 20,000 locals to 40,000 people in term time, doubling in size compared to the number of students. And the uni has been expanding year after year, all to get the foreign student money in. But because it's a tiny town, accommodation hasn't kept up.
Obviously this is a very large student population in a very compact town, but it does show you the kind of effect foreign students are having on locals.
I do wonder how many other towns are experiencing similar pressures on housing and other services as a result.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
And that's why you wear your seatbelt unless you're actively moving around the cabin.
Seriously, though, to have such severe turbulence someone dies. Wow. That must have been horrific.
David Cameron has written to Rishi Sunak warning that universities will face job losses and even closure if he pushes ahead with curbs to graduate visas
Sunak is weighing up measures to ensure only ‘best and brightest’ come to U.K.
Cameron: ‘One of the consequences of any restrictions on graduate visas is that universities will experience further financial difficulties — leading to job losses, closures and a reduction in research’
He highlights the ‘significant economic contribution’ that international students make to the economy
He also warns that it could damage Britain’s ‘soft power’
He joins a coalition of ministers opposed to hardline curbs on graduate visas including Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor and James Cleverly, the home secretary
Ally of Sunak pushes back: ‘Ultimately ministers get lobbied and make a case for their equities but the PM has to take the right position for the country’
Apart from "must make number go down" monomania, what the flip does Rishi think he's playing at?
He wants to be able to frame the next election as a choice between low immigration under the Tories or high immigration under Labour. So he has to force Labour to oppose policies which aim to reduce immigration.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
If that is Rishi's plan, to contrast high immigration Labour with low immigration Conservatives, then it runs smack bang into the reality of record immigration under this government.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
The governments record is not the decision in front of voters though. If they don’t like it so far, voters have to decide if it will be worse or better under Labour.
You are, of course, correct, but the evidence of the opinion polls is that decisions have already been made. So what is Rishi's master plan on immigration? I'd suggest we look past the small boats and Rwanda and instead look at student visas, which is where this sub-thread started. The trouble is, I'm not sure the voter on the Clapham omnibus is too exercised about foreign students.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
Round me, people have made a direct link between students and the housing crisis. A very large proportion of all new apartments are student accommodation (AKA Scandi prison cells).
This only really effects Uni cities though. The election will be won in the suburbs/towns.
Hm - I think it's a bit more complex than that. Surely building new purpose-built student accommodation, in, to give a local example, Manchester City Centre, frees up family housing in Fallowfield and Withington? Purpose built student accommodation may be unromantic, but it strikes me as a reasonably efficient way of increasing the housing supply.
EDIT: other cities'c omparisons are available, of course. I could have substituted Newcastle/Leeds/Liverpool/Sheffield City Centre for Manchester City Centre and Jesmond/Headingley/Broomhill/Mossley Hill for Fallowfield and Withington.
In Brighton, huge amounts of new student accommodation have had two beneficial effects. Firstly, it's released the previous private-rented accommodation to others. Secondly, and just as important, the areas of Brighton that were rather blighted (all-night parties etc.) and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of transient students have had their sense of community restored and become more popular again.
IMF relatively positive for the UK today with room for up to 3 rate cuts this year and reasonable growth projection against our partners. Getting to the point now that this is much more helpful to an incoming government than Sunaks electoral prospects, but it may help stymie their losses a bit
Good afternoon
I think the economy will really perform well to the next election but not because of Sunak so much, but investors seeing a 5 year period, at least, of stability under Starmer
How much it effects the polls I have no idea but it will not prevent a Starmer government with a good majority especially in view of the likely collapse of the SNP
It could prevent the election of a Starmer government. You, or anyone can’t state for certain as you just done.
Many elections with late swing show it’s just hours from opinion polls pointing to one thing, the actual result another, political perceptions can change and polls move dramatically in days and weeks, it doesn’t need months for big movement. Evidence needed? 50 days of Truss she started about 4% behind Labour, finished about 40% behind.
Besides Labour have made a HUGE political mistake. They blamed all the financial woe and voter pain on Truss, and left Rishi free to the acclaim of complete reversion the Truss mess and making UKs economic woes history with his plan. inflation and growth in a fantastic place, and interest rates and mortgages on precipice of drop too. the plan is obviously working, Reeves and Starmer will be laughed at and shred their credibility, if they try to claim the governments plan is not working or that they’ve got a better one, won’t they?
That's some epic straw-clutching at work.
Labour are 20 points or more ahead and somehow a couple of months of "good news" is going to wipe that out - seriously? In 1997, the economy was foing very well as I recall but it didn't save the Conservatives from a heavy defeat - why should it now?
I don't quite know what has led to this damascene conversion to being a fan of Rishi Sunak and as for this "conservatism" you were going on about the other day, where is it in the current incarnation of the Conservative Party? Where will it be IF they get re-elected?
“Epic straw clutching” going on? Let me tell you about it.
People believe what they want to happen will happen, cling to it like comfort blankets often in the face of reality. But the reality here is when you ask yourself, which party is going to be gaslighting the voters on true state of the economy, from here on in? There can only be the one honest answer to that one.
Wages up, inflation destroyed, growth going gangbusters, interest rates and mortgage costs on edge of precipice and coming down, one party committed to tax cuts, the other uncommitted.
Apparently none of this is going to make a slight difference 😂 the election result already long decided 😂 late swings never happen in politics 🤣
When it comes to Election Day, all the people who want Conservatism has to decide if they will get Conservatism if they vote Labour and Labour gets in. You are trying to make out General Elections are decided like a beauty contest - not long held ideas - or merely a referendum on a governments performance, nothing else. It doesn’t work like that. The actual campaign that moves all the votes around, so the result merely slips into an historic pattern, could turn into a massive referendum on wether electing a Labour government and their plans, will make things worse or better.
Considering the polling shows a different thing to what is normal movement GE to GE, considering elections are decided or influenced by the economy, and by not considering an election campaign not a referendum on the governments performance but on wether all Labours plans can make things better or worse, your conviction of a Labour majority is bizarrely complacent. 🤷♀️
I agree with almost none of that - the Don't Knows are very low, the Labour leads have been in for months and we are 14 years into a period of Government led by the Conservatives.
This is not a first term Government digging its way out of a mid term hole with people willing to give it another chance - this is a Party and Government which has been in power for more than a decade and which, in the opinion of many, has not and is not comporting itself well.
The Daily Mail has its own version of the truth ("gangbusters" indeed, I suspect some of its readership had to look up the word) but in the real world people don't see or feel this economic utopia you seem so anxious to project and it is about what has happened (not all of which by any means was this Government's fault but it happened on their watch).
If anyone's dismissive or anything is "bizarrely competent", it's the notion the campaign will change anything. People have had plenty of time to make up their minds about Sunak and they don't like what they see - as for Starmer, he's no fool, he's not got Blair's charisma but that doesn't matter as he seems halfway competent.
I still don't know what the kind of "conservatism" you claim to seek looks like - it may once have existed in the Conservative Party (perhaps in the early days of Cameron) but it's gone now and the only way for the party to re-invent is for it to be defeated, go into opposition and figure out for what it really stands.
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
Why does it matter "who came first" if whatever it is is a bad idea?
It's simply wrong, though.
Roe v Wade, for example, was a bipartisan decision by a majority Republican appointed court. That one of Eisenhower's appointments turned out a leading liberal on the court reinforces the point.
Nevertheless it was an example of legal activism. Lawyers sought out the case with the intention of changing the law.
That's a meaningless term as far as useful analysis is concerned. You might say the same of 1st Amendment rights. What they actually mean has changed dramatically in the last hundred years as a result of judicial decisions - and yet that is almost entirely uncontroversial, and hardly anyone calls it 'legal activism'.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
And that's why you wear your seatbelt unless you're actively moving around the cabin.
Seriously, though, to have such severe turbulence someone dies. Wow. That must have been horrific.
Does it say what they died of though? A dodgy ticker might not be advantageous in that sort of situation.
One of the rarely talked about aspects of cost of going to university now is not the fees, its the accommodation cost, both in terms of the weekly rent and the length / conditions of the contracts. In return for some upgrades like an ensuite bathroom (well a cupboard in the corner of the room with a shower / toilet), the total cost of a years student accommodation has massively outstripped inflation, driven mostly by the fact it is private providers who build, own, operate large proportion of the student accommodation market now.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
And that's why you wear your seatbelt unless you're actively moving around the cabin.
Seriously, though, to have such severe turbulence someone dies. Wow. That must have been horrific.
One way it can happen is if the plane suddenly plunges you can be hurled UPWARDS from your seat, breaking your neck on the overhead cabins. Jeez!
Or - as I said - people have been killed by runaway trolleys, smashing into them
Yep, always wear your seatbelt, even when sleeping. Maybe especially when sleeping
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
In America, a part of the progressive movement decided that they didn’t need votes. The voters were not moving fast enough and moving them by argument was a bit of a bore.
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
I think this is an ahistorical analysis. The right's focus on filling judicial posts instead of persuading the electorate came first.
Why does it matter "who came first" if whatever it is is a bad idea?
It's simply wrong, though.
Roe v Wade, for example, was a bipartisan decision by a majority Republican appointed court. That one of Eisenhower's appointments turned out a leading liberal on the court reinforces the point.
Nevertheless it was an example of legal activism. Lawyers sought out the case with the intention of changing the law.
That's a meaningless term as far as useful analysis is concerned. You might say the same of 1st Amendment rights. What they actually mean has changed dramatically in the last hundred years as a result of judicial decisions - and yet that is almost entirely uncontroversial, and hardly anyone calls it 'legal activism'.
Yet it was. The problem is the abandonment of legislative action to go with judicial action. With the result that the Supreme Court is now the highest legislative chamber.
Forwards: Jude Bellingham (Real Madrid), Jarrod Bowen (West Ham), Eberechi Eze (Crystal Palace), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Anthony Gordon (Newcastle), Harry Kane (Bayern Munich), James Maddison (Tottenham), Cole Palmer (Chelsea), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Ivan Toney (Brentford), Ollie Watkins (Aston Villa).
One of the rarely talked about aspects of cost of going to university now is not the fees, its the accommodation cost, both in terms of the weekly rent and the length / conditions of the contracts. In return for some upgrades like an ensuite bathroom (well a cupboard in the corner of the room with a shower / toilet), the total cost of a years student accommodation has massively outstripped inflation, driven mostly by the fact it is private providers who build, own, operate large proportion of the student accommodation market now.
Let the universites go bust and turn the luxury student accommodation into council flats.
One of the rarely talked about aspects of cost of going to university now is not the fees, its the accommodation cost, both in terms of the weekly rent and the length / conditions of the contracts. In return for some upgrades like an ensuite bathroom (well a cupboard in the corner of the room with a shower / toilet), the total cost of a years student accommodation has massively outstripped inflation, driven mostly by the fact it is private providers who build, own, operate large proportion of the student accommodation market now.
Let the universites go bust and turn the luxury student accommodation into council flats.
That's the problem though - who wants to share 8 tiny bedrooms and a shared kitchen?
That's why the developers love them so much - massive rents, cheap and cheerful, only one or two bathrooms/kitchen.
Suggestions of “dozens” injured on that Singapore flight which got caught in turbulence. 30 ambulances met the plane as it landed in Bangkok. Sounds utterly horrific for passengers and crew. Plane was a 777-300ER, 219 pax and 18 crew on board. (2/3 full).
Jesus Christ
To make it worse that must have been totally unexpected, otherwise everyone woukd have been strapped in, anticipating turbulence. That many injuries - even deaths - suggests there was no warning at all. Kinell
And that's why you wear your seatbelt unless you're actively moving around the cabin.
Seriously, though, to have such severe turbulence someone dies. Wow. That must have been horrific.
One way it can happen is if the plane suddenly plunges you can be hurled UPWARDS from your seat, breaking your neck on the overhead cabins. Jeez!
Or - as I said - people have been killed by runaway trolleys, smashing into them
Yep, always wear your seatbelt, even when sleeping. Maybe especially when sleeping
Which of course doesn't protect you from the flying bodies of non-belters.
Comments
As an insanely frequent flyer I can't say I'm overly fond of these reports
In order to understand the present, one must pierce the veil of the dominant discourse. When Yousaf and his former Green allies talk of avoiding “toxic culture wars”, they mean silencing opposition to the radical changes in language and behaviour they plan to enforce on society. The underlying premise is that they are advancing the inexorable course of history.
Kate Forbes wouldn't find it easy to come in and break up that cosy consensus.
It's one of his best remaining chances to close the gap.
Many elections with late swing show it’s just hours from opinion polls pointing to one thing, the actual result another, political perceptions can change and polls move dramatically in days and weeks, it doesn’t need months for big movement. Evidence needed? 50 days of Truss she started about 4% behind Labour, finished about 40% behind.
Besides Labour have made a HUGE political mistake. They blamed all the financial woe and voter pain on Truss, and left Rishi free to the acclaim of complete reversion the Truss mess and making UKs economic woes history with his plan. inflation and growth in a fantastic place, and interest rates and mortgages on precipice of drop too. the plan is obviously working, Reeves and Starmer will be laughed at and shred their credibility, if they try to claim the governments plan is not working or that they’ve got a better one, won’t they?
Point 2: I don't really follow this one. Swinney does not come with the baggage that Yousaf did and was in charge of some very tricky departments/policies under Sturgeon. Relatively competent, I'd say. There is a general dearth of charisma everywhere.
I think it might be a Ben Macpherson type figure. Suitably left wing and hearts and minds on independence.
Britain has to earn to pay its way, to buy food, energy and so much more on international markets. International students are service sector exports. Providing British kids with a third-level education helps to improve productivity and the wealth of the country. It's almost like they're aiming for Britain to become a poorer, miserable, backwater.
Yesterday was one of the heaviest video days of the war. We logged 244 videos, 853 video clips. Just imagine it takes 5 minutes or so per video clip x 853 = 4265 minutes of work. Put across 3 people is about 1421 minutes of work per person. note, there are 1440 minutes in a day.
https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1792878626859278807
Since the law was progressive, all they need was the Supreme Court. So all that needed doing was to construct a castle of legislative law and get it blessed by the Court.
One small flaw with this plan was that the other side noticed. The Loony Tunes right then spent decades getting judges of their view into all the lower benches. Who gradually worked their way up. So more and more candidates for the higher courts were from that pool. Trump was just the last act in the story.
The other small flaw was not getting buy in from the electorate. In a modern democracy, the voters have been told they are sovereign. Every man/woman a prince(ess). And No is not a word that princes like (or Must).
Importing this stupidity is a very bad idea. Yes, it may move things.. forward. For a bit. But ultimately it breaks the system.
We need politicians to articulate the change they want, build a consensus behind it and put it through Parliament.
The reason it has not moved the polls is Rishi is constantly reminding voters of his own government's failure.
What they usually do is try to flying through weather formations most often associated with it, but that's not always possible.
"Yet this was not the only example of creeping authoritarianism. In a separate incident, the former Greek finance minister, left-wing political theorist and pro-Palestine speaker Yanis Varoufakis was prohibited from entering German territory and connecting with public meetings in Germany by video link. Throughout these episodes, the EU was silent."
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/04/biggest-threat-freedom-west-liberalism-itself-john-gray
"Are Americans Tuning Out The 2024 Election? | 538 Politics Podcast", see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLtFauDau_0 , specifically https://youtu.be/RLtFauDau_0?si=p2L7VllIshKVbImT&t=1889
PART 1: NATHANIEL
Nathaniel what do you got?
"...My good use of polling um came from Courtney Kennedy at the Pew Research Center um she did a really interesting and compelling presentation on basically on why margin of error is not sufficient it's an outdated statistic so something that we've talked about before but frankly should be talking about more is that margin of error only accounts for sampling error but there are lots of other types of error that can happen in polling like measurement error non-response error things like that and so when you say if poll has a plus or minus margin of error of like three points or whatever theoretically it's supposed to be within that range 95% of the time but we know that isn't true we know for example that an average polling error for presidential election is like four points and for Senate and House elections it's even higher than that and so basically she was advocating for creating a new statistic called like margin of total error and she kind of went through a couple of different ways in which um we could go about making that and they all kind of have their problems but I think it's a really important Pursuit given that obviously there is a crisis in kind of trust in polling and institutions more broadly and that when we tell people this poll has a margin of error of only three points don't worry about it that's actually misleading because in reality an average polling error is larger than that it's uh generally about twice as large as the published margin of error for election polls so that's important in terms of people's understanding or interpretation of the polls knowing that um there is more uncertainty than is usually advertised yeah sounds like there's a lot of good information uh that hopefully we'll try to get on the podcast down the line at AAPOR..."
Jeffrey wrap it up for us: what was your good use of polling?
"...I would say just broadly the the sense that I got from a number of presentations about the ways that different pollsters are trying to make sure they get like a a good initial sample and are reaching hard-to-reach populations and this involved for instance the mode of sampling so pollsters sort of expanding the ways that they were get in touch with people so they might send out a letter to respondents asking to join a panel and it was like well we can have you know phone just basically different ways to take the poll once you've joined the panel like is it easier for some people to text sure younger people were like somewhat more likely to do that but interestingly there were like fascinating demographic breakdowns on like black voters were more likely to answer by phone so making sure you had a phone option for people to actually call in and respond was like important for making sure that had like a good initial sample of Americans for this panel or poll or whatever you were working on and so just kind of the different information out there about how people were trying to reach individuals and in fact this phrase was used multiple times by different presenters meet the voters where they are was a really interesting thing that you know was reassuring like you know pollsters are out there working really hard to try to get the best data they can..."
Even if you restricted everyone to a single lifetime visit, the global growth in tourism means it's impossible for everyone to go.
We have to, somehow, let go of this idea that there's a list of places that everyone has to go to see.
PART 3: AI SUMMARY OF PART 1 AND 2
https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer
The main points discussed in the text revolve around the limitations of the margin of error in polling. Courtney Kennedy from the Pew Research Center highlighted that the margin of error only accounts for sampling error, neglecting other types of errors like measurement error and non-response error. This leads to an average polling error that is larger than the published margin of error, especially in election polls. Kennedy proposed the concept of a new statistic called "margin of total error" to address this issue and improve the accuracy of polling data.
Another key insight from the text is the importance of reaching hard-to-reach populations in polling. Pollsters are exploring different sampling methods, such as sending letters to potential respondents to join a panel or offering various modes of communication like phone calls or text messages. Demographic breakdowns revealed interesting trends, such as black voters being more likely to answer by phone. The emphasis on meeting voters where they are and making efforts to obtain a good initial sample of Americans was highlighted as crucial in ensuring the quality of polling data.
Overall, the text underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding polling errors beyond just the margin of error and the significance of innovative strategies to reach diverse populations for more accurate and representative polling results.
Other problem is the world class forwards don’t all fit in, as they perform best only in the positions they share with each other.
Other problem is Kanes back issue.
The first drop was bad, but we all breathed a sigh of relief, and then the second one was really, really bad. I can't exactly recall the figures later given from the flight deck, but it was definitely multiple thousand feet.
I lifted against the seatbelt, and would definitely have been on the ceiling if I wasn't strapped in. No one was injured but there were loose tablets, magazines, drinks flying everywhere. We had several minutes of repeated drops like that.
There were a few screams, but oddly that wasn't so bad, it was the large numbers of people weeping and moaning that got me, because other than that the plane was essentially silent. And the creaking of the plane - every part of the aircaft seemed to be under incredible stress during and after each drops.
I'm sure most of us at one time or another have been on a flight where there's applause on landing, but that was certainly the most heartfelt applause I've ever been part of.
Daniel Hewitt
@DanielHewittITV
Exclusive: Paula Vennells described cases of wrongly convicted subpostmasters as “very disturbing”, after receiving key evidence a decade ago.
We’ve discovered a “smoking gun” email and tape that politicians say prove “she knew exactly what was going on”
https://x.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1792862349352681812
Pickford, Tripper (LB), Stones, Maguire, Walker, Rice, Bellingham, Foden, Saka, Kane plus one, likely Palmer when attacking or Gallagher/Alexander-Arnold (CM) in tighter games.
...both Lord Glenarthur and Lord Patten genuinely endeavoured to assist the Inquiry. By contrast, Lord Clarke was combative: he described his natural style as seeking to challenge, and that extended to his questioning why he should have been asked to give any evidence at all to the Inquiry.450 He claimed that unless someone pointed out to him that something was going on, he had nothing to do with blood transfusion or products and that “The campaigners attributed everything to me because I later became a well-known figure.”451 He was at pains to point out his lack of involvement and lack of responsibility. He seemed to argue that any failure on the part of government did not have any effect on anybody’s health, even though he was obviously not in a position to know whether that was the case (indeed he did not even appear to be aware that people were infected with AIDS from the British blood supply, as well as that which was imported, and wondered whether Factor 8 was a pill to be taken at home).452 He thought it was “daft” that he be asked detailed questions “about events 40 years ago in a busy Government Department where this was a tiny, tiny proportion of my activity.”453
He was firmly of the view that if you stopped giving Factor 8 “you were killing some haemophiliacs” and postulated that had the decision to stop imports been taken, whilst lives would have been saved, “we” (the Government) would “have continued to this day to be reviled for condemning haemophiliacs to going back to the kind of life they’d enjoyed before this wonder treatment was devised*.”454 He did not think that there was anything the DHSS did wrong and asserted that if the Inquiry came to the conclusion that the introduction of HIV screening took too long “I would reject the conclusion.”..
*His assertion is actually untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:China_population_pyramid_from_2023_to_2100.gif
(Demographics! The cause of, and solution to, all of our problems.)
The tone of government policy over the next three decades seems to have been set by his attitude.
The likes of Branthwaite, Colwill, Guehi and Quansah are backup defenders.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/england-euro-2024-itv-curse-32728564
“Both BBC and ITV showed the Euro 2020 final defeat to Italy – the ITV curse is stronger than the BBC good luck charm, it seems. So expect Gareth Southgate’s side to get off to a flying start before it all comes crashing down in the third against Slovenia on ITV.
“If that doesn’t fatally wound them the Three Lions would have to run an ITV gauntlet for almost the entire knockout phase. The channel have the rights to show England in the last 16 and the semi-final before sharing the final with the BBC again if they get that far.
"Good luck lads. You’ll need it.’’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGavcf4zt9o
Give it a year or two and Labour will be in the shit big time. Starmer is weak and says and does anything to please...
Remember the hand of Mandleson is bound to behind what Labour are doing.... and saying....
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking CCHQ's expensive Australian experts are leading Rishi down the same rabbit hole that meant Michael Howard underperformed even IDS.
Wharton and Quansah won't make the 26. Bowen and Eze will only play the third group game if we are already qualified. Branthwaite or Guehi will be third choice CB so fair chance of playing given Stones and Maguires injury records.
Rashford and Sterling definitely fit in the category of think they should be playing despite all evidence to the contrary. Miles behind Palmer for the last attacking slot.
Labour are 20 points or more ahead and somehow a couple of months of "good news" is going to wipe that out - seriously? In 1997, the economy was foing very well as I recall but it didn't save the Conservatives from a heavy defeat - why should it now?
I don't quite know what has led to this damascene conversion to being a fan of Rishi Sunak and as for this "conservatism" you were going on about the other day, where is it in the current incarnation of the Conservative Party? Where will it be IF they get re-elected?
https://dataconomy.com/2024/04/03/ai-enhanced-video-evidence-is-banned-by-court/
"AI-enhanced video evidence is banned by court
The legal proceedings concern Joshua Puloka, 46, accused of fatally shooting three people and injuring two at a bar near Seattle in 2021
A Washington state judge has ruled against the admission of “AI-enhanced” video evidence in a triple homicide case, a decision that underscores the skepticism around the belief that AI filters can uncover hidden visual information. King County’s Judge Leroy McCullough articulated in his recent decision that the AI technology employed utilizes “opaque methods to represent what the AI model ‘thinks’ should be shown,” as reported by NBC News on Tuesday.
“This Court finds that admission of this Al-enhanced evidence would lead to a confusion of the issues and a muddling of eyewitness testimony, and could lead to a time-consuming trial within a trial about the non-peer-reviewable-process used by the AI model,” McCullough stated."
This only really effects Uni cities though. The election will be won in the suburbs/towns.
If England get an injury / suspension or two, young stars will have be called upon, where as in the past Southgate has always gone with the same core of experienced players like Henderson (despite not being anywhere near the best in his position).
“Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions” - the law should *follow* the consensus of society, not be used to hammer change against the will of the electorate.
While the latter might seem attractive, it is, fundamentally trying to do an end run round the democratic process. Doing so opens the door to Trumpism.
One is he doesn't see the point of the inquiry and why he should be answerable for the dreadful treatment of blood transfusion patients. He lacks any introspection or empathy for the victims. On that point guilty as charged in my view.
The other point is whether Clarke has particular responsibility for not protecting blood transfusion patients in the first place and for preventing them getting justice and compensation after they were infected. And because of this he should be called out. I am not so sure about this. The first would lie more with NHS processes. Several other healthcare systems allowed contaminated blood. It looks like Margaret Thatcher was the main obstacle to the victims getting justice and compensation, not Clarke, her junior health minister. But I haven't read enough to be sure.
EDIT: other cities'c omparisons are available, of course. I could have substituted Newcastle/Leeds/Liverpool/Sheffield City Centre for Manchester City Centre and Jesmond/Headingley/Broomhill/Mossley Hill for Fallowfield and Withington.
https://x.com/matichononline/status/1792893188686127176/video/1
Chilwell would be closer to selection, could have gone either way.
Despite Ronaldo not being anywhere near the player he was, you have to give it to him, staying in such shape / form for over 20 years and more wealth than he can ever spend, yet he is still in tip top condition.
210k for blood victims within weeks
Roe v Wade, for example, was a bipartisan decision by a majority Republican appointed court. That one of Eisenhower's appointments turned out a leading liberal on the court reinforces the point.
Edinburgh is building accommodation incredibly fast - every patch of former industrial ground between Princes Street and the Shore. But that construction is to accommodate the student letting industry, not to provide homes to local people who are competing for the existing tenements. There is an opportunity cost for each patch of land.
I don't think many PBers understand what is going on in the cities, which is where the housing crisis exists. Supply is one thing - but it's a supply of rental and short term lets for landlords.
But his combination of incuriosity and certainty regarding the underlying facts is characteristic of his time in both posts.
People believe what they want to happen will happen, cling to it like comfort blankets often in the face of reality.
But the reality here is when you ask yourself, which party is going to be gaslighting the voters on true state of the economy, from here on in? There can only be the one honest answer to that one.
Wages up, inflation destroyed, growth going gangbusters, interest rates and mortgage costs on edge of precipice and coming down, one party committed to tax cuts, the other uncommitted.
Apparently none of this is going to make a slight difference 😂 the election result already long decided 😂 late swings never happen in politics 🤣
When it comes to Election Day, all the people who want Conservatism has to decide if they will get Conservatism if they vote Labour and Labour gets in. You are trying to make out General Elections are decided like a beauty contest - not long held ideas - or merely a referendum on a governments performance, nothing else. It doesn’t work like that. The actual campaign that moves all the votes around, so the result merely slips into an historic pattern, could turn into a massive referendum on wether electing a Labour government and their plans, will make things worse or better.
Considering the polling shows a different thing to what is normal movement GE to GE, considering elections are decided or influenced by the economy, and by not considering an election campaign not a referendum on the governments performance but on wether all Labours plans can make things better or worse, your conviction of a Labour majority is bizarrely complacent. 🤷♀️
5 Grandchildren who went to court after being left a small amount in the Grandads will as he was disappointed they rarely visited have lost and been left with a large bill.
Oh dear, how sad.....
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/granddaughters-left-with-200-000-legal-bill-after-arguing-over-50-inheritance/ar-BB1mLQWC?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=58045597130f4228bbb45f14edb35faa&ei=12
This has led to absurd prices, almost 10k a year for an en suite room - https://thetab.com/uk/durham/2023/11/27/college-accommodation-prices-have-risen-at-rates-higher-than-inflation-53866
And that's if you can even get a room, with students forming queues overnight to take places 'sight unseen' - https://www.palatinate.org.uk/durhams-housing-market-is-out-of-control/
Obviously this is a very large student population in a very compact town, but it does show you the kind of effect foreign students are having on locals.
I do wonder how many other towns are experiencing similar pressures on housing and other services as a result.
Seriously, though, to have such severe turbulence someone dies. Wow. That must have been horrific.
This is not a first term Government digging its way out of a mid term hole with people willing to give it another chance - this is a Party and Government which has been in power for more than a decade and which, in the opinion of many, has not and is not comporting itself well.
The Daily Mail has its own version of the truth ("gangbusters" indeed, I suspect some of its readership had to look up the word) but in the real world people don't see or feel this economic utopia you seem so anxious to project and it is about what has happened (not all of which by any means was this Government's fault but it happened on their watch).
If anyone's dismissive or anything is "bizarrely competent", it's the notion the campaign will change anything. People have had plenty of time to make up their minds about Sunak and they don't like what they see - as for Starmer, he's no fool, he's not got Blair's charisma but that doesn't matter as he seems halfway competent.
I still don't know what the kind of "conservatism" you claim to seek looks like - it may once have existed in the Conservative Party (perhaps in the early days of Cameron) but it's gone now and the only way for the party to re-invent is for it to be defeated, go into opposition and figure out for what it really stands.
You might say the same of 1st Amendment rights. What they actually mean has changed dramatically in the last hundred years as a result of judicial decisions - and yet that is almost entirely uncontroversial, and hardly anyone calls it 'legal activism'.
Or - as I said - people have been killed by runaway trolleys, smashing into them
Yep, always wear your seatbelt, even when sleeping. Maybe especially when sleeping
Goalkeepers: Dean Henderson (Crystal Palace), Jordan Pickford (Everton), Aaron Ramsdale (Arsenal), James Trafford (Burnley).
Defenders: Jarrad Branthwaite (Everton), Lewis Dunk (Brighton), Joe Gomez (Liverpool), Marc Guehi (Crystal Palace), Ezri Konsa (Aston Villa), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Jarell Quansah (Liverpool), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Newcastle), Kyle Walker (Manchester City).
Midfielders: Trent Alexander-Arnold (Liverpool), Conor Gallagher (Chelsea), Curtis Jones (Liverpool), Kobbie Mainoo (Manchester United), Declan Rice (Arsenal), Adam Wharton (Crystal Palace).
Forwards: Jude Bellingham (Real Madrid), Jarrod Bowen (West Ham), Eberechi Eze (Crystal Palace), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Manchester City), Anthony Gordon (Newcastle), Harry Kane (Bayern Munich), James Maddison (Tottenham), Cole Palmer (Chelsea), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Ivan Toney (Brentford), Ollie Watkins (Aston Villa).
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1792903247025287394
That's why the developers love them so much - massive rents, cheap and cheerful, only one or two bathrooms/kitchen.