@MiguelDelaney Can now upgrade this to the customary Avanti line of
"this is a shambles"
That is because often German trains are our own, although iirc Avanti are half-Italian. It's more British infrastructure that has been sold off, so Jeremy Hunt writes subsidy cheques to Rome, Berlin or Amsterdam.
Pendolino trains are made by an Italian company, who sourced their technology from the Advanced Passenger Train in... errr... the UK.
I'm not sure that's quite true, because US unconventional production has such high decline rates. It therefore acts as a very effective near-term balancing mechanism: falling prices mean that production in the Permian no longer makes economic sense, and drilling stops. This leads to a rapid fall in output, halting further declines.
What it does mean, however, is that Nabors and other US onshore oil services names are probably clear sells.
I'll tell the IEA theyre wrong on your behalf
Oh, the IEA are no idiots. But they forget that things are interdependent: more oil = lower prices = lower profits for oil companies = less investment = less oil = higher prices = (rinse and repeat)
No need to explain RCS I have cut you in on the Alanbrooke awards for pigheaded stubborness against the elites. Welcome
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
Survation's methodology is quite interesting. They prompt for constituency, trying to ascertain the tactical voting effect. As it is, their numbers are remarkably similar to other pollsters –– but it's an interesting technique nevertheless.
More in Common and Savantas polls from now will also ballot prompt
It's quite frustrating how pollsters change their methodology amid an election campaign!
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
It's the Horatio Alger fallacy, or two fallacies. One, you would have had to forego sky TV every year since the norman conquest to save up for a year of Winchester. Two, not everyone and not even every Wykehamist is rewarded with a desk at the vampire squid and a billionaires, not enough to go round. Governing is mainly about governing the - from sunaks pov - failures.
Of course he didn't say that well we went without Sky so I could go to school. He was giving it as an example of life's luxuries that the middle class at the time bought that he went without. It isn't a woe is me, born in a barn, rather there are choices my parents made to focus all their spare cash on my education. Without stereotyping too much, it is definitely common in South East Asian middle class community. TSE has talked about at length.
I am sure now there will 1000s of column inches written sneeringly about this, when at best its a nothing burger. I don't think its sneering from him, more misguided thing to say particularly into climate where the UK seems to do nothing more than knock people down up have succeeded. Not just Sunak, but his parents, I am sure they are incredibly proud of their son and that how a first generation immigrant has become PM and that their hard work went some way toward this.
The fact he is rubbish at the job is another matter.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
Not sure “don’t give Labour a big majority” is the greatest play from the Tories.
Entirely possible if people are worried about a big Labour majority AND want the Tories out that they swing behind other alternatives e.g Lib Dems and REFUK.
An awful lot of voters don’t understand politics enough to vote against polls showing landslides. They vote on vibes like, hate Corbyn, get Brexit done, hate Sunak, get worse government of my lifetime out. And the actual maths can take care of itself later. In fact the vibe of Tory’s giving up on fighting halfway through could send more votes to Labour, in the “I voted for the winner” psychology?
And on the same understanding, many voters will vote for Reform thinking Farage will become Leader of the Opposition in Parliament based on their vote. This is where polls showing Farage ahead of Tories must must must not happen - in so many minds they will think “if I now vote for Reform it confirms Nigel as Leader of the Opposition”.
Tories in third, which will be EVERYWHERE even though it’s from just one pollster, is not just a statistical blip, what it could do psychologically in shifting more votes to Reform is huge.
That's great but hwat are the Tories going to offer ? Based on what Ive seen its more of the same.
The Conservative offer in this election is about saving the people from a Labour government. From 2010 the Conservatives have saved our country from socialist economics, nanny state, Labours knee jerk woke like ladies toilets full of men. All those good things Conservatives have achieved, like less direct tax burden on working people as the richest pay more, Labour are promising to CHANGE.
Well maybe but it is losing traction. Since 2010 the Conservatives have simply been drifting off to Blairism. They lost me in 2011 when they refused to unpick the Blair settlement of corporatism and big government with a South East bias. They should have gone hard in this election on what they did in Covid and Cost of living for which they might have got some grudging credit but bizarrely decided not to.
Labour have no real policies but will now be in the pound seats, so unless the conservatives get back to being small state conservatives I cant see what they can offer that's different.
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
So the UK is at the average of seven countries, and the Guardian writes it up as "worse than USA" instead of "better than Japan".
One of my bugbears is stupid rankings, which the media, politicians, charities, think tanks, and gobshites come out with on an almost continous basis.
On the whole they are completely worthless. "Highest for five years", "slowest for 12 months", "record high" none of them mean a damn thing. What matters is how much things have changed, and is is statistically significant, not whether or not something is a tiny bit above or below where it was previously. I don't think I have ever heard a commentator ask whether these sort of rankings show anything meaningful as opposed to ordinary variance that you will see in anything we can measure.
I'm absolutely convinced that these stupid measure actually divert us from bigger picture questions, as it's all too easy to believe that a ranking demonstrates we are doing well or ill, and think that either "job's done" or "something must be done" when you are really observing no meaningful signal.
It might be worth reading the report to see if it contains such detail. This was reasonably noteworthy. ..“There are 112 cities in the G7 the size of Nottingham or larger, but of the bottom twenty for productivity, seven are British."..
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
Survation's methodology is quite interesting. They prompt for constituency, trying to ascertain the tactical voting effect. As it is, their numbers are remarkably similar to other pollsters –– but it's an interesting technique nevertheless.
More in Common and Savantas polls from now will also ballot prompt
It's quite frustrating how pollsters change their methodology amid an election campaign!
More in Common will run both sets of figures so we can at least see what was more accurate. Survation I think will keep also running online polls too. Savanta just going for 'we think this is most accurate'
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
Norman Lamb was a lot better minister than he ever got credit for. He also set up inquiries into how poorly served people with learning difficulties are by the NHS and the scandal of the referral centres where particular difficult cases are sent away from their families indefinitely.
In doing so he took a huge risk that it would all blow up in his face and him get the blame for it all.
The big negative is he re-mortgaged his own house to fund Tinchy Stryder horrendous music.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
It's the Horatio Alger fallacy, or two fallacies. One, you would have had to forego sky TV every year since the norman conquest to save up for a year of Winchester. Two, not everyone and not even every Wykehamist is rewarded with a desk at the vampire squid and a billionaires, not enough to go round. Governing is mainly about governing the - from sunaks pov - failures.
Of course he didn't say that well we went without Sky so I could go to school. He was giving it as an example of life's luxuries that the middle class at the time bought that he went without. It isn't a woe is me, born in a barn, rather there are choices my parents made to focus all their spare cash on my education. Without stereotyping too much, it is definitely common in South East Asian middle class community. TSE has talked about at length.
I am sure now there will 1000s of column inches written sneeringly about this, when at best its a nothing burger. I don't think its sneering from him, more misguided thing to say particularly into climate where the UK seems to do nothing more than knock people down up have succeeded. Not just Sunak, but his parents, I am sure they are incredibly proud of their son and that how a first generation immigrant has become PM and that their hard work went some way toward this.
The fact he is rubbish at the job is another matter.
So the UK is at the average of seven countries, and the Guardian writes it up as "worse than USA" instead of "better than Japan".
One of my bugbears is stupid rankings, which the media, politicians, charities, think tanks, and gobshites come out with on an almost continous basis.
On the whole they are completely worthless. "Highest for five years", "slowest for 12 months", "record high" none of them mean a damn thing. What matters is how much things have changed, and is is statistically significant, not whether or not something is a tiny bit above or below where it was previously. I don't think I have ever heard a commentator ask whether these sort of rankings show anything meaningful as opposed to ordinary variance that you will see in anything we can measure.
I'm absolutely convinced that these stupid measure actually divert us from bigger picture questions, as it's all too easy to believe that a ranking demonstrates we are doing well or ill, and think that either "job's done" or "something must be done" when you are really observing no meaningful signal.
It might be worth reading the report to see if it contains such detail. This was reasonably noteworthy. ..“There are 112 cities in the G7 the size of Nottingham or larger, but of the bottom twenty for productivity, seven are British."..
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
It also moves towards attacking his parents for being 'snobs' etc which is not on Attack the guy on his record, not this nonsense
It's a pertinent point though, not as an attack line but simply a social comment. Having Sky in the 80s and 90s was definitely non-U. Reminds me of when Ian Hislop said on HIGNFY "in my household we didn't have an ITV button".
Yep, point taken, although i think there are a lot more factors that come into it. The WC/Sky thing was, I think, also a slightly later phenomena/social comment - a late 90s thing
I'd say for me we used to notice that it was the council houses that had sky in the early days (in my head very early 90's).
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
A judge eventually decided that the computer evidence wasn't reliable, in 2019. If that could happen then, why couldn't it have happened earlier?
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
We've discussed this before.
Without claiming the courts are perfect, it's important to note that neither judge nor jury can easily detect when an apparently respectable expert witness is perjuring themself - and that is yet more difficult in cases relying on computer evidence, when government has passed legislation effectively saying that it can't be challenged. (One of the most disgraceful - and predictably idiotic - pieces of legislation ever to hit the statute book.)
British courts are not investigators - they can only deal with the evidence presented to them.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
A judge eventually decided that the computer evidence wasn't reliable, in 2019. If that could happen then, why couldn't it have happened earlier?
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
Yes, it might be foolish prejudice, but I've never had Sky, and never will. Though I do miss the cricket.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
True but not true
If evidence relies on some absurdity then they are there to detect that absurdity. Thus if the police say I walked through a wall to commit a theft then did I do it ? The Post Office evidence was no less absurd. Double Entry Book Keeping proved the evidence was absurd and we have accepted that as evidence since the thirteenth century.
I’ve got a feeling that the recent Labour drops will be counteracted by their post manifesto bounce.
There’s things in there that will win them some votes back that are being overlooked right now IMO.
For example, there’s currently some worries about some of the Labour Left / Youth vote.
I expect “Labour supports a Palestinian state in the Manifesto” to be a big headline post Thursday.
It obviously won’t win back ALL of the left vote but it will certainly help, and/or encourage some people to not stay at home.
Similar proposals will probably benefit from their chance to cut through.
I think Labour have been smart in not going too early, since the risk of it being seen as a foregone victory, and many staying at home, might lead to a disappointing polling day.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
"I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge"
It might be worth reading the report to see if it contains such detail. This was reasonably noteworthy. ..“There are 112 cities in the G7 the size of Nottingham or larger, but of the bottom twenty for productivity, seven are British."..
(There are 14 cities that size in the UK.)
I've no beef with the data, assuming it's useful and collected properly. Data isn't the problem, it's the turning data into ranks and pretending that that tells us something useful. It almost always results in people losing sight of the actual values and considering whether or not the change is significant and warrants action. It's a nonsensical way of reducing complex and variable systems into something like a top 40 of record sales. With something like GDP we could have the best figures in the G7, coming top of a ranking, but in reality still have dismal growth by historic terms with everyone in the same boat.
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
It is bonkers how often we move ministers around from post to post often with zero experience or even interest in their new ministry beyond the next rung on their political ladder.
Cabinet ministers should have a couple of years experience either as a junior minister/shadow in that department or on the relevant select committee. Our governance would improve loads and it doesn't cost anything to do.
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
Survation's methodology is quite interesting. They prompt for constituency, trying to ascertain the tactical voting effect. As it is, their numbers are remarkably similar to other pollsters –– but it's an interesting technique nevertheless.
More in Common and Savantas polls from now will also ballot prompt
It's quite frustrating how pollsters change their methodology amid an election campaign!
More in Common will run both sets of figures so we can at least see what was more accurate. Survation I think will keep also running online polls too. Savanta just going for 'we think this is most accurate'
Does anyone know if pollsters establish whether votes are "tactical"? e.g if a Labour supporter in say St Ives intends to vote tactically for LD but wants Labour to win the election How would they respond?
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
Survation's methodology is quite interesting. They prompt for constituency, trying to ascertain the tactical voting effect. As it is, their numbers are remarkably similar to other pollsters –– but it's an interesting technique nevertheless.
More in Common and Savantas polls from now will also ballot prompt
It's quite frustrating how pollsters change their methodology amid an election campaign!
More in Common will run both sets of figures so we can at least see what was more accurate. Survation I think will keep also running online polls too. Savanta just going for 'we think this is most accurate'
Strange that the changes add up to -3. Including others, it's just about possible for rounding errors to account for that, but only just.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
"I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge"
Then you have moved to the perfect place: Ireland
No, Northern Ireland.
And it's not "grudges".
It is the ability to perfectly remember (all the time) 1000 years of hideous wrongs done to us'ns. Combined with the ability not to remember the hideous wrongs we are perpetrating *at this moment* on them'ns.
I’ve got a feeling that the recent Labour drops will be counteracted by their post manifesto bounce.
There’s things in there that will win them some votes back that are being overlooked right now IMO.
For example, there’s currently some worries about some of the Labour Left / Youth vote.
I expect “Labour supports a Palestinian state in the Manifesto” to be a big headline post Thursday.
It obviously won’t win back ALL of the left vote but it will certainly help, and/or encourage some people to not stay at home.
Similar proposals will probably benefit from their chance to cut through.
I think Labour have been smart in not going too early, since the risk of it being seen as a foregone victory, and many staying at home, might lead to a disappointing polling day.
The recognition of Palestine is very weak sauce though. It is only as part of a peace process which doesn't show any signs of starting any time soon, it's basically the same as the Cameron position and the two-state solution has been Labour policy for the last 40 years so no change there.
Few seem to appreciate that this scandal, the blood contamination case, the Andy Malkinson case (and other similar ones), the endless NHS and Police scandals are all symptomatic of a shredded administrative and political class lacking in competence, integrity and either the ability to admit to or willingness to correct mistakes.
I found myself in disagreement with this paragraph.
But only because you forgot to mention education...
It's a very long list. Ours was not meant to be comprehensive.
Thanks to you and Ms Free for the threader. It is important.
(Dons flameproof coat)
But I'd also take a contrary view: there is much in this country that does work. Yes, there are failures - far too many, in fact. Yes, things are under an increasing strain that needs relieving - somehow. Yet when things work, as they do the vast majority of the time, it is not noticed. When my son was ill recently, the experience with all levels of the NHS was brilliant. A friend's unusual and non-straightforward issue was sorted out by the council speedily and compassionately. Things often work well.
The failures are all too noticeable, and often hideous. However I'm unsure that they are more widespread than they used to be, or even more egregious - perhaps it is now much easier for these things to come, eventually and belatedly, into the public domain. I'm very unsure the Post Office scandal is anywhere near unique in British history.
I don't want this to sound complacent; as I said, there are too many failures, and a reluctance to hold people to account for them, and/or learn lessons. But neither is right to think of Britain as a failed state. We're not.
It's just that we can - and must - do better.
That's an appropriate and balanced rejoinder, JJ. Thank you.
I agree and wouldn't wish to give the impression that I think we're all going to hell in a handcart and nothing can be done about it. I'm particularly supportive of your remark about the NHS. My experience has been fortunate too, and I certainly would not have led such a long and comfortable life without it.
But we must indeed do better. The painful thing about the PO scandal, and no doubt the rest of them, is that a little honesty and integrity at the outset would have not only greatly diminished the number of miscarriages of justice, it would also have been infinitely cheaper and more successful than the appalling cover-ups.
Why do so many institutions pursue such hopeless strategies? This is the point from which I hope Ms C's book will start.
Whilst watching yesterday's proceeding, I was struck that even as the whole sorry story was begining to come out into the open, the Post Office was still doubling down on the failed strategy of the previous twenty years. Rather than admit its errors, it engaged two of the world's leading barristers, Mssrs Grabiner & Neuberger (charge out rates £3,000 per hour) to construct a fanciful defence based on the supposed lack of objectivity of the High Court judge who found in favour of the SubPostMasters. Happily, this was dismissed summarily in the Court of Appeal, but you have to wonder why the PO continued to press a hopeless case rather than address the real issue - which was that it wrongly prosecuted hundreds of innocent people, largely on account of a shite computer system which was widely known within the organisation to be complete shite.
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
It is bonkers how often we move ministers around from post to post often with zero experience or even interest in their new ministry beyond the next rung on their political ladder.
Cabinet ministers should have a couple of years experience either as a junior minister/shadow in that department or on the relevant select committee. Our governance would improve loads and it doesn't cost anything to do.
I advocate career training for politicians. You can have someone who has never run anything bigger than a constituency office running an organisation larger than most companies.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
We've discussed this before.
Without claiming the courts are perfect, it's important to note that neither judge nor jury can easily detect when an apparently respectable expert witness is perjuring themself - and that is yet more difficult in cases relying on computer evidence, when government has passed legislation effectively saying that it can't be challenged. (One of the most disgraceful - and predictably idiotic - pieces of legislation ever to hit the statute book.)
British courts are not investigators - they can only deal with the evidence presented to them.
The law of evidence has to make presumptions, though they are all rebuttable. And this is the difficulty in an electronic digital age.
To take a naive example, if a piece of evidence is what Y says that X said in a phone call, there is a presumption not that Y is telling the truth, but that in the actual world what Y heard relates reliably to what X said because the telephone message heard is a correlate of what is said.
If the prosecution had to prove this with expert evidence every time, the entire system would collapse.
The computer problem, and the digital world generally, is a more or less infinite extension of this problem.
Guido being subtle as a fucking brick this morning. Publish or shut the fuck up Staines
FWIW I think she's being kept out of the spotlight because Labour know that enough of their voters are frothing anti-semites (which is an issue that no-one in politics wants to address) that them realising he's married to one of their mortal enemies may lose Labour quite a few votes.
More likely she is being kept out of the spotlight because, by and large, spouses are kept out of the spotlight in this country and we only find out little bits when the politician makes it to Number 10. Who is Grant Shapps married to, or Jeremy Hunt or Ed Davey? No-one knows and almost no-one cares. It is not because dirty tricks are keeping them off the front page.
@Chameleon might be right, however. I have seen some really nasty Corbynite jibes about Starmer's "Zio wife" on TwiX. Ugly ugly stuff
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
A judge eventually decided that the computer evidence wasn't reliable, in 2019. If that could happen then, why couldn't it have happened earlier?
Because that verdict was the result of an appeal on behalf of hundreds of postmasters, and relied on evidence presented to the court which was gathered over many years.
It could have happened earlier had anyone in government asked tougher questions of the Post Office which they own on our behalf.
But it's not something the courts could have done on their own.
Note that lawyers have regularly protested (and still protest) the state of the law on computer evidence. Which you can blame Blair's government for.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged ...The legal presumption that computers are reliable stems from an older common law principle that “mechanical instruments” should be presumed to be in working order unless proven otherwise. That assumption means that if, for instance, a police officer quotes the time on their watch, a defendant cannot force the prosecution to call a horologist to explain from first principles how watches work. For a period, computers lost that protection in England and Wales. A 1984 act of parliament ruled that computer evidence was only admissible if it could be shown that the computer was used and operating properly. But that act was repealed in 1999, just months before the first trials of the Horizon system began...
It effectively means that the burden of proof is on the defendant. An impossible hurdle.
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
It is bonkers how often we move ministers around from post to post often with zero experience or even interest in their new ministry beyond the next rung on their political ladder.
Cabinet ministers should have a couple of years experience either as a junior minister/shadow in that department or on the relevant select committee. Our governance would improve loads and it doesn't cost anything to do.
I advocate career training for politicians. You can have someone who has never run anything bigger than a constituency office running an organisation larger than most companies.
The other way to read this answer is that if every family works hard and sacrifices luxuries they can send their kids to Winchester.
And if they don’t, they’re not making their children‘s education “a priority”.
See, that's exactly my childhood.
Plus my father was convinced getting Sky would impact my grades.
Fortunately we got Sky when I aced my GCSEs.
Wait. You had TV? Luxury.
Growing up, we had three TVs.
Until I was 11 we only had a black and white TV. And it was a portable! And it wasn't so my parents could send us to Winchester. You've not lived until you've watched snooker in black and white.
That's my favourite 'Colemanballs'.
"For those of you with Black and white TVs the brown ball is behind the yellow"
Not sure “don’t give Labour a big majority” is the greatest play from the Tories.
Entirely possible if people are worried about a big Labour majority AND want the Tories out that they swing behind other alternatives e.g Lib Dems and REFUK.
An awful lot of voters don’t understand politics enough to vote against polls showing landslides. They vote on vibes like, hate Corbyn, get Brexit done, hate Sunak, get worse government of my lifetime out. And the actual maths can take care of itself later. In fact the vibe of Tory’s giving up on fighting halfway through could send more votes to Labour, in the “I voted for the winner” psychology?
And on the same understanding, many voters will vote for Reform thinking Farage will become Leader of the Opposition in Parliament based on their vote. This is where polls showing Farage ahead of Tories must must must not happen - in so many minds they will think “if I now vote for Reform it confirms Nigel as Leader of the Opposition”.
Tories in third, which will be EVERYWHERE even though it’s from just one pollster, is not just a statistical blip, what it could do psychologically in shifting more votes to Reform is huge.
That's great but hwat are the Tories going to offer ? Based on what Ive seen its more of the same.
The Conservative offer in this election is about saving the people from a Labour government. From 2010 the Conservatives have saved our country from socialist economics, nanny state, Labours knee jerk woke like ladies toilets full of men. All those good things Conservatives have achieved, like less direct tax burden on working people as the richest pay more, Labour are promising to CHANGE.
Well maybe but it is losing traction. Since 2010 the Conservatives have simply been drifting off to Blairism. They lost me in 2011 when they refused to unpick the Blair settlement of corporatism and big government with a South East bias. They should have gone hard in this election on what they did in Covid and Cost of living for which they might have got some grudging credit but bizarrely decided not to.
Labour have no real policies but will now be in the pound seats, so unless the conservatives get back to being small state conservatives I cant see what they can offer that's different.
Yes, without going all Andrew Neil about this manifesto and the last few years in power, this is a Conservative Party that believes in big government. All its solutions and most of its proposals are about using the power of the state, from Covid, fuel costs and the cost of living crisis in the past, to national service, "our NHS", free childcare and pensions in future. The idea that state intervention is only for lefties does not stand up to a moment's reflection.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
A judge eventually decided that the computer evidence wasn't reliable, in 2019. If that could happen then, why couldn't it have happened earlier?
Oh. I don't know. That's a good question.
Because in evidence presumptions are rebuttable.
Why not earlier? The defence has far less resource available to it than the prosecution.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
"I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge"
Then you have moved to the perfect place: Ireland
Yes. My petty grudge against Murdoch is rather put into perspective by 855 years of grudging.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
True but not true
If evidence relies on some absurdity then they are there to detect that absurdity. Thus if the police say I walked through a wall to commit a theft then did I do it ? The Post Office evidence was no less absurd. Double Entry Book Keeping proved the evidence was absurd and we have accepted that as evidence since the thirteenth century.
They can only do so by following the rules of evidence.
There are institutions (eg the CCRB) which can investigate and pursue miscarriages of justice - but they are even more poorly funded than the courts.
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
It is bonkers how often we move ministers around from post to post often with zero experience or even interest in their new ministry beyond the next rung on their political ladder.
Cabinet ministers should have a couple of years experience either as a junior minister/shadow in that department or on the relevant select committee. Our governance would improve loads and it doesn't cost anything to do.
This is a big problem with British governments.
When an new government takes over the majority of posts are filled with ministers who are a good match to the ministry/department. Then after 2 years there is a shuffle and the more promising ministers are moved to more important departments but might have no experience in that area. After that there is a reshuffle every 12-18 months and the "competence match-up" gets worse and worse. After 10 years all the competent ministers have resigned or left Westminster and leaving behind a big mess.
Guido being subtle as a fucking brick this morning. Publish or shut the fuck up Staines
FWIW I think she's being kept out of the spotlight because Labour know that enough of their voters are frothing anti-semites (which is an issue that no-one in politics wants to address) that them realising he's married to one of their mortal enemies may lose Labour quite a few votes.
More likely she is being kept out of the spotlight because, by and large, spouses are kept out of the spotlight in this country and we only find out little bits when the politician makes it to Number 10. Who is Grant Shapps married to, or Jeremy Hunt or Ed Davey? No-one knows and almost no-one cares. It is not because dirty tricks are keeping them off the front page.
@Chameleon might be right, however. I have seen some really nasty Corbynite jibes about Starmer's "Zio wife" on TwiX. Ugly ugly stuff
Which you just happened to repeat on here
Don't be ridiculous, you are quite ridiculous, even as my sockpuppet. I may have to tone you down, and remove some of your more ridiculous elements, TBH
Most PB-ers will be blithely unaware of the nasty discourse surrounding Starmer's wife, and they may think @Chameleon is talking bollocks. If so, that is uinfair on @Chameleon - because he/she is right. There is an anti-Semitic strain in the left-Labour critique of Starmer, and it is focused on his Jewish wife, who is accused of "controlling her husband", hence Starmer's support for Israel - or so the allegation goes
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
it does look reasonable, until youj remember that this means cataclysm for the Tories. On your figures, Baxtered:
Labour: 456 Tories: 95 LDs: 55 Reform: 3 SNP: 14
Actually that does look quite plausible. Horrific for the Tories but not extinction, quite, some of them may see that as a relief - high two figures!
Three years ago we would have been debating a 95 seat majority for the Tories, not 95 MPs in total.
Tories and Reform combined though on 35% of the vote, which is actually higher than the 33% for the Tories plus Referendum party and UKIP in 1997. Yet Major's Tories got 70 more seats than is projected for Sunak's Tories with 12% of the vote netting Reform a mere 3 seats.
Lab 41 (-) (changes vs 5th June poll) Cons 20 (-3) Reform 15 (+6) LD 11 (-1) Green 8 (-) SNP 3 (-) Others 3 (-)
Fwk: June 7th-10th
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Shifts since 2019
Of those who are likely to vote in the upcoming election, less than half (44%) of those who voted Conservative in 2019 now say they will vote Conservative again. While over a quarter (28%) of 2019 Conservative voters, now saying they will vote for Reform UK. In comparison, three quarters (76%) of likely voters who voted Labour in 2019 say they will voter Labour again at the upcoming election. Only 4% say they will now vote for Reform UK. Although Labour is losing some votes to the Green party (13% of 2019 voters). Labour are making some gains from the Liberal Democrats. Among likely voters, four-in-ten (40%) that voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2019 are planning to vote for Labour in the upcoming general election.
Conservative 2019 voters are most likely to say neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer are the best leader for Britain. While Labour 2019 voters are most likely to choose Keir Starmer.
Half of Conservative 2019 voters (51%) say that neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer is the best leader for Britain. One third (34%) choose Rishi Sunak, while 10% choose Keir Starmer, and 5% say they don’t know. Two thirds (67%) of Labour 2019 voters say that Keir Starmer is the best leader for Britain, while a quarter (25%) choose neither and only 3% chose Rishi Sunak. 5% say they don’t know. The shift among Conservative 2019 voters is likely to be related to policy concerns.
One third (31%) of Conservative 2019 voters say immigration is the most important issue when deciding who to vote for at the general election. This is joint most important issue with the economy (31%). The NHS is the third most important issue (18%). The NHS is the most important issue for Labour 2019 voters (36%), followed by the economy (31%). Only 6% of Labour 2019 voters say immigration is the most important issue when deciding who to vote for. Suggesting that few of their previous voters are likely to defect to Reform UK
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
It is bonkers how often we move ministers around from post to post often with zero experience or even interest in their new ministry beyond the next rung on their political ladder.
Cabinet ministers should have a couple of years experience either as a junior minister/shadow in that department or on the relevant select committee. Our governance would improve loads and it doesn't cost anything to do.
This is a big problem with British governments.
When an new government takes over the majority of posts are filled with ministers who are a good match to the ministry/department. Then after 2 years there is a shuffle and the more promising ministers are moved to more important departments but might have no experience in that area. After that there is a reshuffle every 12-18 months and the "competence match-up" gets worse and worse. After 10 years all the competent ministers have resigned or left Westminster and leaving behind a big mess.
Which is a good argument for 5-year, fixed term , parliaments. Give a minister time to actually address the issues, instead of obsessing over next day's media headlines.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
Aye but a phone poll so not comparable methodologies really, it's a different breed of poll poodle
That’ll be lost on @Leon - MAGA nutjobs don’t do tricky details like that.
Of note, Greens have never polled above 3.8% in a General Election. Are they really that attractive in 2024, or LibDems-Labour that unattractive, that they’re almost doubling that figure?
Few seem to appreciate that this scandal, the blood contamination case, the Andy Malkinson case (and other similar ones), the endless NHS and Police scandals are all symptomatic of a shredded administrative and political class lacking in competence, integrity and either the ability to admit to or willingness to correct mistakes.
I found myself in disagreement with this paragraph.
But only because you forgot to mention education...
It's a very long list. Ours was not meant to be comprehensive.
Thanks to you and Ms Free for the threader. It is important.
(Dons flameproof coat)
But I'd also take a contrary view: there is much in this country that does work. Yes, there are failures - far too many, in fact. Yes, things are under an increasing strain that needs relieving - somehow. Yet when things work, as they do the vast majority of the time, it is not noticed. When my son was ill recently, the experience with all levels of the NHS was brilliant. A friend's unusual and non-straightforward issue was sorted out by the council speedily and compassionately. Things often work well.
The failures are all too noticeable, and often hideous. However I'm unsure that they are more widespread than they used to be, or even more egregious - perhaps it is now much easier for these things to come, eventually and belatedly, into the public domain. I'm very unsure the Post Office scandal is anywhere near unique in British history.
I don't want this to sound complacent; as I said, there are too many failures, and a reluctance to hold people to account for them, and/or learn lessons. But neither is right to think of Britain as a failed state. We're not.
It's just that we can - and must - do better.
That's an appropriate and balanced rejoinder, JJ. Thank you.
I agree and wouldn't wish to give the impression that I think we're all going to hell in a handcart and nothing can be done about it. I'm particularly supportive of your remark about the NHS. My experience has been fortunate too, and I certainly would not have led such a long and comfortable life without it.
But we must indeed do better. The painful thing about the PO scandal, and no doubt the rest of them, is that a little honesty and integrity at the outset would have not only greatly diminished the number of miscarriages of justice, it would also have been infinitely cheaper and more successful than the appalling cover-ups.
Why do so many institutions pursue such hopeless strategies? This is the point from which I hope Ms C's book will start.
Whilst watching yesterday's proceeding, I was struck that even as the whole sorry story was begining to come out into the open, the Post Office was still doubling down on the failed strategy of the previous twenty years. Rather than admit its errors, it engaged two of the world's leading barristers, Mssrs Grabiner & Neuberger (charge out rates £3,000 per hour) to construct a fanciful defence based on the supposed lack of objectivity of the High Court judge who found in favour of the SubPostMasters. Happily, this was dismissed summarily in the Court of Appeal, but you have to wonder why the PO continued to press a hopeless case rather than address the real issue - which was that it wrongly prosecuted hundreds of innocent people, largely on account of a shite computer system which was widely known within the organisation to be complete shite.
It's insane. Yes, must do better.
I am currently dealing with an attempt to dehydrate a relative to death in the NHS.
Yes, the operation was a complete success. Just that a succession of doctors seemed to be unable to join up the facts that
- patient has just had an operation that stuffs up the appetite completely. - patient not eating or drinking - gets physically ill if they attempt to. - patient is visibly dehydrating and becoming more and more lethargic. - It can take a long time for the appetite to return, according to medical articles on the operation type.
It took robust intervention to get an IV going. After 4 days.
No shortage of medical staff - just inability to do anything without a very senior consultant holding their hands or something.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Labour now below 1997 New Labour voteshare levels with both Survation and Verian but heading for more seats thanks to the divide on the right
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Verians previous poll was pre Farage entering the race so its the Faragasm showing up
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
"I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge"
Then you have moved to the perfect place: Ireland
No, Northern Ireland.
And it's not "grudges".
It is the ability to perfectly remember (all the time) 1000 years of hideous wrongs done to us'ns. Combined with the ability not to remember the hideous wrongs we are perpetrating *at this moment* on them'ns.
The Republic is perfect precisely because all the grudges are historical, and there are no hideous wrongs being perpetrated at this moment.
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
Survation's methodology is quite interesting. They prompt for constituency, trying to ascertain the tactical voting effect. As it is, their numbers are remarkably similar to other pollsters –– but it's an interesting technique nevertheless.
More in Common and Savantas polls from now will also ballot prompt
It's quite frustrating how pollsters change their methodology amid an election campaign!
More in Common will run both sets of figures so we can at least see what was more accurate. Survation I think will keep also running online polls too. Savanta just going for 'we think this is most accurate'
Does anyone know if pollsters establish whether votes are "tactical"? e.g if a Labour supporter in say St Ives intends to vote tactically for LD but wants Labour to win the election How would they respond?
Some ask if voters are prepared to vote 'tactically' about 40% usually are
I’ve got a feeling that the recent Labour drops will be counteracted by their post manifesto bounce.
There’s things in there that will win them some votes back that are being overlooked right now IMO.
For example, there’s currently some worries about some of the Labour Left / Youth vote.
I expect “Labour supports a Palestinian state in the Manifesto” to be a big headline post Thursday.
It obviously won’t win back ALL of the left vote but it will certainly help, and/or encourage some people to not stay at home.
Similar proposals will probably benefit from their chance to cut through.
I think Labour have been smart in not going too early, since the risk of it being seen as a foregone victory, and many staying at home, might lead to a disappointing polling day.
The recognition of Palestine is very weak sauce though. It is only as part of a peace process which doesn't show any signs of starting any time soon, it's basically the same as the Cameron position and the two-state solution has been Labour policy for the last 40 years so no change there.
There are quite a few on the left who maybe need reminding of that.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Who have never previously polled higher than 3.8% in a General Election. But, hey …
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
"I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge"
Then you have moved to the perfect place: Ireland
Yes. My petty grudge against Murdoch is rather put into perspective by 855 years of grudging.
And yet you and the Irish have nothing on Ted Heath when it comes to grudges.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
We've discussed this before.
Without claiming the courts are perfect, it's important to note that neither judge nor jury can easily detect when an apparently respectable expert witness is perjuring themself - and that is yet more difficult in cases relying on computer evidence, when government has passed legislation effectively saying that it can't be challenged. (One of the most disgraceful - and predictably idiotic - pieces of legislation ever to hit the statute book.)
British courts are not investigators - they can only deal with the evidence presented to them.
The law of evidence has to make presumptions, though they are all rebuttable. And this is the difficulty in an electronic digital age.
To take a naive example, if a piece of evidence is what Y says that X said in a phone call, there is a presumption not that Y is telling the truth, but that in the actual world what Y heard relates reliably to what X said because the telephone message heard is a correlate of what is said.
If the prosecution had to prove this with expert evidence every time, the entire system would collapse.
The computer problem, and the digital world generally, is a more or less infinite extension of this problem.
The current law places the burden of proof, in criminal cases relying on computer evidence, on the defendant. That is a clear injustice.
It's not an simple problem, as you note, but the current solution is plain wrong.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
"I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge"
Then you have moved to the perfect place: Ireland
No, Northern Ireland.
And it's not "grudges".
It is the ability to perfectly remember (all the time) 1000 years of hideous wrongs done to us'ns. Combined with the ability not to remember the hideous wrongs we are perpetrating *at this moment* on them'ns.
The Republic is perfect precisely because all the grudges are historical, and there are no hideous wrongs being perpetrated at this moment.
Sort of makes you wonder why they want to fk the place up by taking on the North.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Labour now below 1997 New Labour voteshare levels with both Survation and Verian but heading for more seats thanks to the divide on the right
Erm, not because of “the divide on the right”
But because of how shit the Conservative Party are right now in most voters’ eyes. Dress it up how you like, add 2 + 2 and make yourself whatever figure you like, but it’s the pants performance of the tories which more than any other single factor is driving this General Election.
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
it does look reasonable, until youj remember that this means cataclysm for the Tories. On your figures, Baxtered:
Labour: 456 Tories: 95 LDs: 55 Reform: 3 SNP: 14
Actually that does look quite plausible. Horrific for the Tories but not extinction, quite, some of them may see that as a relief - high two figures!
Three years ago we would have been debating a 95 seat majority for the Tories, not 95 MPs in total.
Yes, back then it was widely claimed that the Tories had even more of the Red Wall to gobble up, as the glories of Boris's Brexit Golden Age became increasingly apparent.
Raising density levels in inner London to those of European cities like Paris and Barcelona. We will ensure the London Plan delivers more family homes a year
Great idea, there's a patch of very underused land in the City of Westminster, just to the south of Constitution Hill.
Good article, thanks Peter & Cycle. Depressing though - I have this recurring feeling nowadays that we are living during the period that will come to be known as the Fall of the West.
In some ways it's a blessing Mrs P. and I have no children, grandchildren etc. when I think of the prospect today's children are facing.
(Then again - I bet every generation has had similar thoughts at times, so cheer up BenPointer!)
It can be depressing, Ben. I have noticed the change in standards of administration and integrity in my lifetime, particularly in recent.
It is a problem, and it transcends party politics. Tough one for succeeding generations, I agree.
Any thoughts as to when the rot began ?
I have a theory that it was the fall of Soviet communism which began the change as those at the top now thought that history had ended, there were no more threats and they could do as they wanted.
Good question.
Off the cuff, I don't know, but feel us boomers have a lot to answer for.
Will the Tory Remnant merge with Reform after July's debacle?
Yes. Unless they manage to hold onto 150-ish seats they absolutely will.
The people who don’t like the idea of a populist takeover might desert the party for a continuity Tory faction but I think the Tory/Reform merger/takeover is becoming somewhat inevitable unless Rishi can salvage a respectable defeat.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Who have never previously polled higher than 3.8% in a General Election. But, hey …
I have long been a 'Green vote sceptic' at past elections - saying "Their voters often go elsewhere on polling day."
But this year, I think the depressed Tory vote means it could actually be real for once.
Anecdotally I've heard of a lot of Tories who will vote Green instead, partly as a protest vote that is seen as 'noble' compared to voting for e.g. Reform.
It might not make sense to us political junkies who think "But, the Greens are much more left wing than Labour on a ton of issues!" but a lot of voters don't really care about it like that.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
Yes, it might be foolish prejudice, but I've never had Sky, and never will. Though I do miss the cricket.
I took Sky when in NZ for a year 1998-99, manly to get English footy but also lots of rugby, including the 6 nations. When we bought a house in 2005, we got Sky straight away and at the time it had almost all the sport I wanted to watch. Now, sadly, it has become a much worse landscape. Sky still does will on cricket, but not everything. and has a lot of football, but not the Champions League. Sky doesn't have the rugby premiership. So things are definitely worse.
However, got Sky Glass last year and I love it. Some will argue that the TV isn't as good as X or Y and the sound isn't as good as A or B, but I love having one remote, one network cable (or indeed wifi) and thats it. No more need for multiple devices etc.
The only bugbear is the delay on live sports. It was bad enough on satellite, now on internet its really bad. You can hear a wicket in the cricket when in the garden, come in, boil the kettle, make tea, a sandwich, sit down and tell the wife - there's going to be a wicket in 5 minutes...
The very weird testimonies of @LostPassword and @Nigelb rather prove my point about Sky Sports sneering. They obviously don’t like sport that much.
Sorry, but that's really quite rude.
I do enjoy sport a great deal. I often watch the County Championship matches on youtube. I will go to great lengths to ensure that I can listen to TMS.
You do not get to decide what qualifies someone as "liking sport that much."
My final vote guesstimate would probably be that, except the taking 2% from the Greens and giving it to the LibDems.
Survation's methodology is quite interesting. They prompt for constituency, trying to ascertain the tactical voting effect. As it is, their numbers are remarkably similar to other pollsters –– but it's an interesting technique nevertheless.
More in Common and Savantas polls from now will also ballot prompt
It's quite frustrating how pollsters change their methodology amid an election campaign!
More in Common will run both sets of figures so we can at least see what was more accurate. Survation I think will keep also running online polls too. Savanta just going for 'we think this is most accurate'
Strange that the changes add up to -3. Including others, it's just about possible for rounding errors to account for that, but only just.
Can't each party be almost 1% different due to rounding (+0.49 to -0.49)? So you could have most of them rounding up one week, and most rounding down the next, easily creating a 3pt gap.
The total also adds up to 99 this week, whereas the last poll was 101, so it does look like rounding down now, and up last time.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Who have never previously polled higher than 3.8% in a General Election. But, hey …
I have long been a 'Green vote sceptic' at past elections - saying "Their voters often go elsewhere on polling day."
But this year, I think the depressed Tory vote means it could actually be real for once.
Anecdotally I've heard of a lot of Tories who will vote Green instead, partly as a protest vote that is seen as 'noble' compared to voting for e.g. Reform.
It might not make sense to us political junkies who think "But, the Greens are much more left wing than Labour on a ton of issues!" but a lot of voters don't really care about it like that.
Not hard to imagine a Conservative voter pissed off at the sewage or the back tracking on fossil fuels voting Green, nor the Corbynite Labour mob. To counter that I suspect they have lost some centrists who will be content with voting whichever of Labour/LD gets us a new government this time around.
There is one aspect of this which I am staggered has never been even hinted at, let alone discussed. The failure of the Post Office is obvious and they deserve a special depth of hell. But what about the Courts ???
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
The Judges and Courts are servants of the Law. The Law was written that computer evidence should be accepted as infallible. There was no basis for the Courts to kick up a fuss, because the central error was that the computer evidence was very fallible indeed, and they were forbidden from thinking otherwise.
A judge eventually decided that the computer evidence wasn't reliable, in 2019. If that could happen then, why couldn't it have happened earlier?
Because that verdict was the result of an appeal on behalf of hundreds of postmasters, and relied on evidence presented to the court which was gathered over many years.
It could have happened earlier had anyone in government asked tougher questions of the Post Office which they own on our behalf.
But it's not something the courts could have done on their own.
Note that lawyers have regularly protested (and still protest) the state of the law on computer evidence. Which you can blame Blair's government for.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged ...The legal presumption that computers are reliable stems from an older common law principle that “mechanical instruments” should be presumed to be in working order unless proven otherwise. That assumption means that if, for instance, a police officer quotes the time on their watch, a defendant cannot force the prosecution to call a horologist to explain from first principles how watches work. For a period, computers lost that protection in England and Wales. A 1984 act of parliament ruled that computer evidence was only admissible if it could be shown that the computer was used and operating properly. But that act was repealed in 1999, just months before the first trials of the Horizon system began...
It effectively means that the burden of proof is on the defendant. An impossible hurdle.
Whoever wrote that law in 1984 was extremely wise.
Topping the list with over 40% postal votes are the Sunderland constistuencies, at the bottom other than the Northern Ireland constistuencies was Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner at 7% and then a number of Birmingham constituencies at 10%.
The North East has a high level of postal votes because the 2004 referendum was all postal votes. The 10 constituencies have 30% and over postal votes and 8 are in the North East, with only Stevenage (32%) and Altrincham and Sale West (30%) outside.
That's the best RefCon poll movement for a while: up 3 points net. But only good compared with their dire score last time. It's LLG 60 RefCon 35, one of the best LLG leads across the pollsters.
No real evidence for a Lib Dem surge. I think that YouGov was an outlier. Plenty of evidence for a Reform surge.
Raising density levels in inner London to those of European cities like Paris and Barcelona. We will ensure the London Plan delivers more family homes a year
Great idea, there's a patch of very underused land in the City of Westminster, just to the south of Constitution Hill.
Looking forward to the Tories adopting the transport policies of European cities like Paris and Barcelona. Specifically those two, in fact.
Guido being subtle as a fucking brick this morning. Publish or shut the fuck up Staines
FWIW I think she's being kept out of the spotlight because Labour know that enough of their voters are frothing anti-semites (which is an issue that no-one in politics wants to address) that them realising he's married to one of their mortal enemies may lose Labour quite a few votes.
More likely she is being kept out of the spotlight because, by and large, spouses are kept out of the spotlight in this country and we only find out little bits when the politician makes it to Number 10. Who is Grant Shapps married to, or Jeremy Hunt or Ed Davey? No-one knows and almost no-one cares. It is not because dirty tricks are keeping them off the front page.
@Chameleon might be right, however. I have seen some really nasty Corbynite jibes about Starmer's "Zio wife" on TwiX. Ugly ugly stuff
Which you just happened to repeat on here
Don't be ridiculous, you are quite ridiculous, even as my sockpuppet. I may have to tone you down, and remove some of your more ridiculous elements, TBH
Most PB-ers will be blithely unaware of the nasty discourse surrounding Starmer's wife, and they may think @Chameleon is talking bollocks. If so, that is uinfair on @Chameleon - because he/she is right. There is an anti-Semitic strain in the left-Labour critique of Starmer, and it is focused on his Jewish wife, who is accused of "controlling her husband", hence Starmer's support for Israel - or so the allegation goes
Yes but the best thing to with antisemitic psycho nutter weirdos like that is to ignore them – not amplify them through repetition.
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
It is bonkers how often we move ministers around from post to post often with zero experience or even interest in their new ministry beyond the next rung on their political ladder.
Cabinet ministers should have a couple of years experience either as a junior minister/shadow in that department or on the relevant select committee. Our governance would improve loads and it doesn't cost anything to do.
We need to be a bit careful with this. In our system, ministers decide policy and civil servants enact it. Our problem is not that ministers are inexpert but that they are incurious (and in the worst cases ignorant and lazy in addition). The PO ministers should have asked more questions, and drilled down into the answers. The Health Secretary can pledge better treatment of sepsis but we do not expect them to carry an ophthalmoscope and prescription pad.
The "it was posher not to have Sky" takes are thoroughly dumb. No, your parents just weren't in to watching live sport.
At the time, it was the "colour tv" of the 60s. The same as having one of the early big screens (the ones that weighed a tonne and because CRT absolutely huge lump behind, and on wheels). It was a bit of a status symbol. In general, kids who had it showed it is off, those that didn't, wanted their parents to get it.
I am sure for the Guardian reading chatting classes in North London it was seen for the commoner, but wider society it was up there with having a new car regularly.
Obviously Sunak's point is that is parents were making decent money, but they spent it all on his education and not the luxuries in life.
Sunak's problem is that this approach just smacks of self-righteousness, another form of privilege. Not only am I richer than you, but I am better than you. I don't think it's the winning strategy he thinks it is with most voters.
I think you bias is clouding your judgement on this one comment. If he had tried to claim they went without food and water for him to go to a top school, it would have been a lie.
But the point he is making (and has made before) his parents used every spare penny to spend him there and as a result they went without the luxuries that middle class families of the time regularly bought. Sky was one of the bit things at the time that people got to say I'm doing alright me.
However, if I was a political adviser I wouldn't open that can of worms, as the media are juvenile.
Not really, personally I have sympathy with his position as I also come from a background of pushy middle class people who take pride in doing without frivolities and for whom education is everything. But most people are not like this (one of the benefits of state education is that you learn this fact) and so I think for a lot of voters they will hear the sound of sneering in these kinds of comments. He'd be better off not saying anything about it at all IMHO.
There is still quite a lot of weird sneering about Sky Sports. People take pride in not having it, despite the fact they claim to love sports. I have a friend who is absolutely mad for netball, both playing and watching. But she never sees any of the games as she point blank refuses to pay for Sky – despite being very high income.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge. Given what Murdoch has done with his newspapers I would find it hard to have anything to do with him, and therefore Sky, even though he sold them off.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
"I am far from perfect, and one of my imperfections is my ability to hold a grudge"
Then you have moved to the perfect place: Ireland
Yes. My petty grudge against Murdoch is rather put into perspective by 855 years of grudging.
Again, Murdoch has nowt to do with Sky TV anymore. It's owned by Comcast.
On the Post Office specifically, does it need saving at all? Does it have any functions that cannot be performed by other organisations?
On governance of public institutions more generally, I am not sure what to suggest.
The most obvious thing is to suggest that change can only come following leadership from the top. We would need our politicians to show a clear example of choosing to do something that is difficult and right, rather than easier and in their self-interest. When government is run on the principle of escaping scrutiny, of finding spin lines to talk away failure, of never admitting to a mistake if it can be avoided, then it is no surprise that the leadership of other institutions follow suit.
Any government inevitably makes lots of mistakes. Everyone inevitably makes lots of mistakes. I don't expect us to become better at admitting them, but I think if we did so it would improve things.
Yes, it would.
The causes of the scandal are many and various but no-one can dispute that the failureof the sole shareholder, the Government, to hold the organisation properly to account was a majorfactor. That is something that can be addressed right now in respect of all Government owned businessed, and at precious little cost.
It's too late for the PO, but others could benefit from an acceptance by politicians that they are responsible for enduring proper accountability of such bodies.
It is after one very good reason why we elect them.
The politicans will of course argue that the *whole point* of separating these organisations from direct government into Qangoes, is so that the ministers don’t find their own heads of the chopping block when things go wrong.
It doesn't work. Worse, Ministers do still get it in the neck, but it is the wrong Ministers, and usually long after the damage has been done. Take Ed Davey, for example. He got targeted when the topic hit the headlines, yet he was no worse than all the others. He may even have been a fraction better in that he did actually meet with Bates, although nothing positive came of it. By contrast, the one Minister to earn praise from Bates for his genuine attempt to get involved, Norman Lamb, got zero credit for it.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
If fewer people were employed compiling statistics for e.g. hospital waiting lists or school league tables, more people could be employed healing patients or teaching.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Greens will be lucky to get half that after TV, so add 2 to both LibDem and Lab.
Kantor had a spell of giving Tories the most favourable polling of all the polls. Go back 4 years and Con 20 in Kantor poll would have seemed fantasy. Perhaps it is. Or what happens when you try a Genny Lec with a leader with such abysmal ratings.
The grass wasn’t as tasty as usual, so went across to the other side and the grass was abysmal. But there was no time left to go elsewhere.
Maybe in hindsight should have stuck with Boris longer in mid term to see if he could have pulled things round. The lesson learned is, can only really get away with 1 PM change between elections, get the timing and decision right.
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Greens will be lucky to get half that after TV, so add 2 to both LibDem and Lab.
Kantor had a spell of giving Tories the most favourable polling of all the polls. Go back 4 years and Con 20 in Kantor poll would have seemed fantasy. Perhaps it is. Or what happens when you try a Genny Lec with a leader with such abysmal ratings.
The grass wasn’t as tasty as usual, so went across to the other side and the grass was abysmal. But there was no time left to go elsewhere.
Maybe in hindsight should have stuck with Boris longer in mid term to see if he could have pulled things round. The lesson learned is, can only really get away with 1 PM change between elections, get the timing and decision right.
Verian have stated their current methodology is not comparable with their Kantar variation fwiw
The very weird testimonies of @LostPassword and @Nigelb rather prove my point about Sky Sports sneering. They obviously don’t like sport that much.
Sorry, but that's really quite rude.
I do enjoy sport a great deal. I often watch the County Championship matches on youtube. I will go to great lengths to ensure that I can listen to TMS.
You do not get to decide what qualifies someone as "liking sport that much."
I had a friend whose only concern when car shopping (late 90's) was the availability of long wave on the radio...
Sky has always provided a fantastic sports service, and Murdoch is a grim, plutocratic opportunist who has helped to immeasurably impoverish British television, newspapers and public life, primarily through his influence on Thatcher's reshaping of broadcasting in the 1980's. Partly as a result, British television overal is a shadow of its former self, but Sky TV still provides an excellent range of sports coverage.
That's the best RefCon poll movement for a while: up 3 points net. But only good compared with their dire score last time. It's LLG 60 RefCon 35, one of the best LLG leads across the pollsters.
No real evidence for a Lib Dem surge. I think that YouGov was an outlier. Plenty of evidence for a Reform surge.
Kantar is one of the pollsters that squeezes DKs heavily and seems to not need to do much upweighting and downweighting in their samples.
Comments
Could I interest you in a bowler hat ?
I am sure now there will 1000s of column inches written sneeringly about this, when at best its a nothing burger. I don't think its sneering from him, more misguided thing to say particularly into climate where the UK seems to do nothing more than knock people down up have succeeded. Not just Sunak, but his parents, I am sure they are incredibly proud of their son and that how a first generation immigrant has become PM and that their hard work went some way toward this.
The fact he is rubbish at the job is another matter.
It is the job of the courts to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They failed even more spectacularly that the Post Office in their alloted task. Quite frankly it is the Judges that allowed these miscarriages of justice to occur in the courts they were presiding over who should be in these open cells.
If someone tries to stitch me up, and some have tried at a much lower level then I would rely on the courts to dig down to the truth. THEY DID NOT DO THIS. Why are they not at the receiving end of everyone's wrath, they are mine.
Labour have no real policies but will now be in the pound seats, so unless the conservatives get back to being small state conservatives I cant see what they can offer that's different.
The system is wrong. Ministers have to get involved, and be given time to get on top of their brief. That's an improvement that could easily be made made, and would cost little.
This is despite the fact that Sky Sports is by far and away the best value of any TV network. The sheer quality and quantity of top level sports of all kinds you get for the subscription fee is incredible. It is much better value than BBC TV.
And Sky News is the best news channel (although that is not saying much – all the UK news channels are relatively poor, particular BBC News, which is hopeless these days and continues to employ the unbearable and shit Laura K).
This was reasonably noteworthy.
..“There are 112 cities in the G7 the size of Nottingham or larger, but of the bottom twenty for productivity, seven are British."..
(There are 14 cities that size in the UK.)
Survation I think will keep also running online polls too.
Savanta just going for 'we think this is most accurate'
In doing so he took a huge risk that it would all blow up in his face and him get the blame for it all.
The big negative is he re-mortgaged his own house to fund Tinchy Stryder horrendous music.
Who’s that bloke in the top left hand corner of Andrea’s Conservative Party election leaflet?
https://x.com/jonsopel/status/1800832952152347069
He was born in 1962
Without claiming the courts are perfect, it's important to note that neither judge nor jury can easily detect when an apparently respectable expert witness is perjuring themself - and that is yet more difficult in cases relying on computer evidence, when government has passed legislation effectively saying that it can't be challenged.
(One of the most disgraceful - and predictably idiotic - pieces of legislation ever to hit the statute book.)
British courts are not investigators - they can only deal with the evidence presented to them.
I also strongly object to the business model of paying for exclusive rights to something and then charging monopoly rents for it. It takes the piss.
Though I do miss the cricket.
If evidence relies on some absurdity then they are there to detect that absurdity. Thus if the police say I walked through a wall to commit a theft then did I do it ? The Post Office evidence was no less absurd. Double Entry Book Keeping proved the evidence was absurd and we have accepted that as evidence since the thirteenth century.
https://order-order.com/2024/06/12/andrea-jenkyns-swaps-sunak-for-farage-in-election-material/
There’s things in there that will win them some votes back that are being overlooked right now IMO.
For example, there’s currently some worries about some of the Labour Left / Youth vote.
I expect “Labour supports a Palestinian state in the Manifesto” to be a big headline post Thursday.
It obviously won’t win back ALL of the left vote but it will certainly help, and/or encourage some people to not stay at home.
Similar proposals will probably benefit from their chance to cut through.
I think Labour have been smart in not going too early, since the risk of it being seen as a foregone victory, and many staying at home, might lead to a disappointing polling day.
Then you have moved to the perfect place: Ireland
Cabinet ministers should have a couple of years experience either as a junior minister/shadow in that department or on the relevant select committee. Our governance would improve loads and it doesn't cost anything to do.
shilling£5k for signing up to their four point commitment to culture.e.g if a Labour supporter in say St Ives intends to vote tactically for LD but wants Labour to win the election
How would they respond?
And it's not "grudges".
It is the ability to perfectly remember (all the time) 1000 years of hideous wrongs done to us'ns. Combined with the ability not to remember the hideous wrongs we are perpetrating *at this moment* on them'ns.
I agree and wouldn't wish to give the impression that I think we're all going to hell in a handcart and nothing can be done about it. I'm particularly supportive of your remark about the NHS. My experience has been fortunate too, and I certainly would not have led such a long and comfortable life without it.
But we must indeed do better. The painful thing about the PO scandal, and no doubt the rest of them, is that a little honesty and integrity at the outset would have not only greatly diminished the number of miscarriages of justice, it would also have been infinitely cheaper and more successful than the appalling cover-ups.
Why do so many institutions pursue such hopeless strategies? This is the point from which I hope Ms C's book will start.
Whilst watching yesterday's proceeding, I was struck that even as the whole sorry story was begining to come out into the open, the Post Office was still doubling down on the failed strategy of the previous twenty years. Rather than admit its errors, it engaged two of the world's leading barristers, Mssrs Grabiner & Neuberger (charge out rates £3,000 per hour) to construct a fanciful defence based on the supposed lack of objectivity of the High Court judge who found in favour of the SubPostMasters. Happily, this was dismissed summarily in the Court of Appeal, but you have to wonder why the PO continued to press a hopeless case rather than address the real issue - which was that it wrongly prosecuted hundreds of innocent people, largely on account of a shite computer system which was widely known within the organisation to be complete shite.
It's insane. Yes, must do better.
To take a naive example, if a piece of evidence is what Y says that X said in a phone call, there is a presumption not that Y is telling the truth, but that in the actual world what Y heard relates reliably to what X said because the telephone message heard is a correlate of what is said.
If the prosecution had to prove this with expert evidence every time, the entire system would collapse.
The computer problem, and the digital world generally, is a more or less infinite extension of this problem.
150 is recoverable, is 95 the start of a lingering death?
It could have happened earlier had anyone in government asked tougher questions of the Post Office which they own on our behalf.
But it's not something the courts could have done on their own.
Note that lawyers have regularly protested (and still protest) the state of the law on computer evidence.
Which you can blame Blair's government for.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/12/update-law-on-computer-evidence-to-avoid-horizon-repeat-ministers-urged
...The legal presumption that computers are reliable stems from an older common law principle that “mechanical instruments” should be presumed to be in working order unless proven otherwise. That assumption means that if, for instance, a police officer quotes the time on their watch, a defendant cannot force the prosecution to call a horologist to explain from first principles how watches work.
For a period, computers lost that protection in England and Wales. A 1984 act of parliament ruled that computer evidence was only admissible if it could be shown that the computer was used and operating properly. But that act was repealed in 1999, just months before the first trials of the Horizon system began...
It effectively means that the burden of proof is on the defendant. An impossible hurdle.
Why not earlier? The defence has far less resource available to it than the prosecution.
There are institutions (eg the CCRB) which can investigate and pursue miscarriages of justice - but they are even more poorly funded than the courts.
When an new government takes over the majority of posts are filled with ministers who are a good match to the ministry/department. Then after 2 years there is a shuffle and the more promising ministers are moved to more important departments but might have no experience in that area. After that there is a reshuffle every 12-18 months and the "competence match-up" gets worse and worse. After 10 years all the competent ministers have resigned or left Westminster and leaving behind a big mess.
Most PB-ers will be blithely unaware of the nasty discourse surrounding Starmer's wife, and they may think @Chameleon is talking bollocks. If so, that is uinfair on @Chameleon - because he/she is right. There is an anti-Semitic strain in the left-Labour critique of Starmer, and it is focused on his Jewish wife, who is accused of "controlling her husband", hence Starmer's support for Israel - or so the allegation goes
FPTP now working against a divided right
https://x.com/joelwilliams74/status/1800834549158674791
Lab 41 (-) (changes vs 5th June poll)
Cons 20 (-3)
Reform 15 (+6)
LD 11 (-1)
Green 8 (-)
SNP 3 (-)
Others 3 (-)
Fwk: June 7th-10th
Survation data has slightly different fieldwork dates ('5-11 June, 60% conducted 10-11 June) - but imagine it's methodology playing a big part of the difference.
See also: another poll showing the Greens on 8%!
Shifts since 2019
Of those who are likely to vote in the upcoming election, less than half (44%) of those who voted Conservative in 2019 now say they will vote Conservative again. While over a quarter (28%) of 2019 Conservative voters, now saying they will vote for Reform UK.
In comparison, three quarters (76%) of likely voters who voted Labour in 2019 say they will voter Labour again at the upcoming election. Only 4% say they will now vote for Reform UK. Although Labour is losing some votes to the Green party (13% of 2019 voters).
Labour are making some gains from the Liberal Democrats. Among likely voters, four-in-ten (40%) that voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2019 are planning to vote for Labour in the upcoming general election.
Conservative 2019 voters are most likely to say neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer are the best leader for Britain. While Labour 2019 voters are most likely to choose Keir Starmer.
Half of Conservative 2019 voters (51%) say that neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer is the best leader for Britain. One third (34%) choose Rishi Sunak, while 10% choose Keir Starmer, and 5% say they don’t know.
Two thirds (67%) of Labour 2019 voters say that Keir Starmer is the best leader for Britain, while a quarter (25%) choose neither and only 3% chose Rishi Sunak. 5% say they don’t know.
The shift among Conservative 2019 voters is likely to be related to policy concerns.
One third (31%) of Conservative 2019 voters say immigration is the most important issue when deciding who to vote for at the general election. This is joint most important issue with the economy (31%). The NHS is the third most important issue (18%).
The NHS is the most important issue for Labour 2019 voters (36%), followed by the economy (31%). Only 6% of Labour 2019 voters say immigration is the most important issue when deciding who to vote for. Suggesting that few of their previous voters are likely to defect to Reform UK
Of note, Greens have never polled above 3.8% in a General Election. Are they really that attractive in 2024, or LibDems-Labour that unattractive, that they’re almost doubling that figure?
I doubt it.
Yes, the operation was a complete success. Just that a succession of doctors seemed to be unable to join up the facts that
- patient has just had an operation that stuffs up the appetite completely.
- patient not eating or drinking - gets physically ill if they attempt to.
- patient is visibly dehydrating and becoming more and more lethargic.
- It can take a long time for the appetite to return, according to medical articles on the operation type.
It took robust intervention to get an IV going. After 4 days.
No shortage of medical staff - just inability to do anything without a very senior consultant holding their hands or something.
It's not an simple problem, as you note, but the current solution is plain wrong.
We'll be East Germany with even less gratitude.
But because of how shit the Conservative Party are right now in most voters’ eyes. Dress it up how you like, add 2 + 2 and make yourself whatever figure you like, but it’s the pants performance of the tories which more than any other single factor is driving this General Election.
Fact my friend.
I just despise Murdoch and his legacy.
As I noted, I miss the cricket. I couldn't care less about football.
@BritainElects
📊 Labour lead at 21pts
Westminster voting intention
LAB: 41% (-)
CON: 20% (-3)
REF: 15% (+6)
LDEM: 11% (-1)
GRN: 8% (-)
via
@VerianGroup
, 07 - 10 Jun
[Formerly Kantar]"
Off the cuff, I don't know, but feel us boomers have a lot to answer for.
The people who don’t like the idea of a populist takeover might desert the party for a continuity Tory faction but I think the Tory/Reform merger/takeover is becoming somewhat inevitable unless Rishi can salvage a respectable defeat.
But this year, I think the depressed Tory vote means it could actually be real for once.
Anecdotally I've heard of a lot of Tories who will vote Green instead, partly as a protest vote that is seen as 'noble' compared to voting for e.g. Reform.
It might not make sense to us political junkies who think "But, the Greens are much more left wing than Labour on a ton of issues!" but a lot of voters don't really care about it like that.
So things are definitely worse.
However, got Sky Glass last year and I love it. Some will argue that the TV isn't as good as X or Y and the sound isn't as good as A or B, but I love having one remote, one network cable (or indeed wifi) and thats it. No more need for multiple devices etc.
The only bugbear is the delay on live sports. It was bad enough on satellite, now on internet its really bad. You can hear a wicket in the cricket when in the garden, come in, boil the kettle, make tea, a sandwich, sit down and tell the wife - there's going to be a wicket in 5 minutes...
(Ok its not quite that bad...)
I do enjoy sport a great deal. I often watch the County Championship matches on youtube. I will go to great lengths to ensure that I can listen to TMS.
You do not get to decide what qualifies someone as "liking sport that much."
It's owned by Comcast, an American network that has sod all to do with Murdoch.
The total also adds up to 99 this week, whereas the last poll was 101, so it does look like rounding down now, and up last time.
The electoral commission has detailed data from each constistuency https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-05/UKPGE%202019-%20Electoral%20Data-Website.xlsx&ved=2ahUKEwiT46258NWGAxWDUUEAHfVDB0IQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0pXGxmVyghaXYB44vCw9wr for some reason I could only find it via google and not direct from the electoral commission website.
Topping the list with over 40% postal votes are the Sunderland constistuencies, at the bottom other than the Northern Ireland constistuencies was Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner at 7% and then a number of Birmingham constituencies at 10%.
The North East has a high level of postal votes because the 2004 referendum was all postal votes. The 10 constituencies have 30% and over postal votes and 8 are in the North East, with only Stevenage (32%) and Altrincham and Sale West (30%) outside.
No real evidence for a Lib Dem surge. I think that YouGov was an outlier. Plenty of evidence for a Reform surge.
Kantor had a spell of giving Tories the most favourable polling of all the polls. Go back 4 years and Con 20 in Kantor poll would have seemed fantasy. Perhaps it is. Or what happens when you try a Genny Lec with a leader with such abysmal ratings.
The grass wasn’t as tasty as usual, so went across to the other side and the grass was abysmal. But there was no time left to go elsewhere.
Maybe in hindsight should have stuck with Boris longer in mid term to see if he could have pulled things round. The lesson learned is, can only really get away with 1 PM change between elections, get the timing and decision right.
Sky has always provided a fantastic sports service, and Murdoch is a grim, plutocratic opportunist who has helped to immeasurably impoverish British television, newspapers and public life, primarily through his influence on Thatcher's reshaping of broadcasting in the 1980's. Partly as a result, British television overal is a shadow of its former self, but Sky TV still provides an excellent range of sports coverage.