I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Most probably this was a case of entering the results into a spreadsheet and having a "totals" row at the bottom, with the person selecting the rows to be totalled accidentally missed the top or bottom row off the selected rows. Everyone's done it when using a spreadsheet, but a double check usually catches the mistake.
I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Most probably this was a case of entering the results into a spreadsheet and having a "totals" row at the bottom, with the person selecting the rows to be totalled accidentally missed the top or bottom row off the selected rows. Everyone's done it when using a spreadsheet, but a double check usually catches the mistake.
In the cases of unusual ballot falloff patterns that I just referenced, election authorities did NOT catch the errors. Instead, it was party election observers who spotted them.
The mistake in Putney was significant enough to raise overall UK turnout from 59.7% to 59.8% to one decimal place.
I don't understand why it isn't possible to change the vote tally when something like this is discovered. A lot of peoples vote is not being counted. Also why didn't they notice a 17% fall in turnout in a middle class seat or any seat really made no sense?
I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Incidents such as you describe are almost inevitable, given the rush! rush! rush! to not just count votes into the wee hours after polls close, but also to finalize the results immediately or close enough.
In USA election authorities also strive to count ballots quickly BUT also have time after Election Night to canvass the returns for errors and omissions, such as what reportedly happened in Putney.
ADDENDUM - AND you are correct, strange drop in turnout, or in "ballot falloff" in US elections (voters who cast ballots but who skip voting on some candidate or measures) should be investigated . . . preferably BEFORE results are certified.
Have personally been involved in two elections, where it turned out unusual falloff patterns were due to perfectly legitimate votes NOT being tabulated; as in case of Putney the ultimate result was unchanged because the uncounted votes occurred randomly.
I agree that they should slow down a bit on election night and do things more carefully.
Today I had a reminder of the most baffling mystery in modern Britain: why the mobile network along our mainland railway lines is so utterly shite.
If SKS can sort that then he’ll have been a successful PM.
Because they go through rural areas. It would require a specific "make the railway corridors have good reception" mandate, presumably.
It's shite in Germany and Spain too. Can't speak for other places.
It’s pretty much perfect on the Japanese Shinkansen, even in tunnels. Pretty good in Switzerland too.
I’d say it’s worse on the mainlines than in an average countryside spot in England. Presumably due to cuttings. But yes, it requires specific action to address. Which must surely be a no brainer from a GDP and productivity point of view. And the railways are full of wires, posts and towers already. Just get the MNOs to string along some mini-5G towers.
I love Japan, and visit most years, but they have a very high tolerance for urban (and rural) ugliness. So they'll stick a tower anywhere.
Good.
What's wrong with that?
The ugly part.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
People being able to have their own home, be able to work, be able to do what they need to do is more beautiful than keeping a superficial skin-deep pristine beauty behind which people are unable to do any of that.
No it isn't.
I think the Bond franchise should have ended when Connery stopped. Since then it has been an absurd anachronistic parody of itself.
Um, no. Casino Royale and No Time to Die are great films. The Spy Who Loved Me and Skyfall are good, too.
I'll say as someone who generally doesn't like Bond and finds most of them formulaic, Skyfall was just awesome.
It didn't just work as a great Bond movie, it worked as a great movie in it's own right. Anyone coming into it with no previous understanding of the franchise could still enjoy it in it's own terms.... The only I reason I watched it was because of Sam Mendes and Adele but I'm pleased I did lol!
Am still waiting for a Danny Boyle directed Bond though.
Hmm. According to the US state department, US travellers should;
"Exercise increased caution in the United Kingdom due to terrorism (sic).
Country Summary: Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in the United Kingdom. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, local government facilities, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, major sporting and cultural events, educational institutions, airports, and other public areas."
The praise of Rishi for is Kings Speech response is interesting and very reminiscent of 1997.
A lot of people felt John Major really came into his own in the hours, days and weeks after Tony Blair destroyed him... After years of impotence and inertia from September 1992 onwards.
Is there something about losing offce that frees a politician from all their burdens? Or is it just that Brits love a loser?
Completely off topic, but I think most of you will like this WaPo story: 'TROON, Scotland — For decades American golfers and golf freaks would come over here and pay a nodding homage to the British Open rough, which to the American eye counted as golf-course exotica. Ample rain in 2024 figured to dole that rough a starring role in this 152nd Open which tees off Thursday, especially the savage gorse with its knack for eating both your ball and your skin (during retrieval of ball). Yet it doesn’t go exactly like that anymore, for a reason only a grinch could find objectionable.
“We are all now starting to recognize,” Bob Taylor said by telephone from England, “that golf courses are more than just the golf course. They’re actually nature preserves.”'
Taylor is an ecologist, so his opinion deserves some respect.
(I've like golf courses for decades, since they are excellent places to cross country ski, when the weather is right. At least once, I was able to ski on one while another man was golfing. It was early spring, so there were long stretches of snow in the shadier parts of the course, while the fairways were open.)
Problem is most golf courses in the UK are not in places that usually have more than a few days of snow each year. Places in Scotland and Wales that do have more snow than that are pretty unlikely to be golf courses, (there may be a few exceptions).
I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Most probably this was a case of entering the results into a spreadsheet and having a "totals" row at the bottom, with the person selecting the rows to be totalled accidentally missed the top or bottom row off the selected rows. Everyone's done it when using a spreadsheet, but a double check usually catches the mistake.
I can check this out, hold on
Fleur Anderson 20952 Lee Roberts 10011 Kieran Mcarthy 5189 Mcentee 3182 Hunter 581 Khoo 433 Burford-Connole 289
I think Biden is going to be replaced as candidate but atm I can't see how that's going to happen in terms of process.
It's entirely up to Biden. The process is that he walks outside and says one of the following:
1) I am standing down as president and nominee, the new president and nominee is Kamala Harris. 2) I am standing down as nominee, I will recommend to my delegates to vote for Kamala Harris. 3) I am standing down as nominee, I will ask the DNC to propose a process to select a nominee with the best chance of beating Trump, and I will recommend to my delegates to vote for that person.
LOL. Someone (not me), possibly as a result of your post, has just backed Kamala into favouritism on Betfair (2.22 vs 2.34 for nomination; some slight resistance as Kamala went from 2.36 to 2.18 then back out to 2.22). https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.178163685
Partly by ratting on all the promises he made to the people who voted for him to become leader, partly by dodging any difficult questions before the election, but mostly by the Conservatives repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot and head.
The David Amess murderer looked at many different targets from different parties before settling on Amess. The murderer scouted out Gove, Freer, Starmer and Jess Phillips were all scouted out. He visited Gove's address six times, and Freer's once.
Amess's was a political murder, but not a party-political one. It might be that the shooting this weekend was not even an overt political act, but a rage at the world and/or a cry for infamy (as was Reagan's).
Surely one of the lessons of this and of the very good comments in the thread below is 'don't be party political'.
Judge each issue on its merits irrespective of which side proposed it or what your 'wing' generally thinks of it. In the modern world with all its connectivity at our finger tips there is no excuse for anyone with a reasonable interest in politics and in the future of their country, not to do a bit of basic research and form their own independent opinion.
This is really just another example of how parties damage our democracy. My party right or wrong is just as dumb as my country right or wrong.
See the USA for this concept taken to the extreme, where the Congresscritters will vote for or against pretty much anything based purely on who proposed it, and the media commentators will either love or hate the idea based on who proposed it - irrespective of its merits.
One thing that is quite interesting to watch is the social media output of the Crown Prosecution Service. They now post pictures of the people they prosecute boasting of their successes, with tabloid/clickbait style articles. But the flipside of this is that, when there is a miscarriage of justice, they themselves will now surely find themselves rapidly in the spotlight, in a similar manner to the post office - the Malkinson case being an example of this. Surely it may be a better comms strategy to stay well under the radar?
Surely one of the lessons of this and of the very good comments in the thread below is 'don't be party political'.
Judge each issue on its merits irrespective of which side proposed it or what your 'wing' generally thinks of it. In the modern world with all its connectivity at our finger tips there is no excuse for anyone with a reasonable interest in politics and in the future of their country, not to do a bit of basic research and form their own independent opinion.
This is really just another example of how parties damage our democracy. My party right or wrong is just as dumb as my country right or wrong.
See the USA for this concept taken to the extreme, where the Congresscritters will vote for or against pretty much anything based purely on who proposed it, and the media commentators will either love or hate the idea based on who proposed it - irrespective of its merits.
This was a particular problem with the Ukraine war. The Republicans talked themselves in to opposing it because it was something the democrats were proposing.
Question - who was the imposter Rishi Sunak who was a bristly nasty thin-skinned git?
I met Sunak in 2020 and was genuinely impressed by his warmth and normality. The Sunak who is now Leader of the Opposition is the same man.
Once he became PM something crazy happened to him, transforming the nice Rishi into the idiot disaster Rishi.
Every Tory who loses big time and is no longer a threat gets this sort of praise heaped on them. William Hague and Tony Blair all being nice to one another after Hague resigned and Hague going on HIGNFY, Theresa May widely recognised as being a good sort attending the cricket. They might be more relaxed in manner because the pressure is off, but it tells a far bigger story about the observers than the observed. Sunak was a crap, overpromoted leader. He tried to do chummy and matey, and it was widely derided - he retreated behind a bully podium because it was a way of using his perceived merits (incumbency, good at maths) to his advantage. Staged family picnics and being 'real' in Tescos would have got him booted out quicker, as ScottP has said.
The truth is some believe or want an adversarial relationship which doesn't exist. I've not seen any mention anywhere of any personal animosity between Sunak and Starmer. One of the main causes of the Coalition was the excellent personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg.
Today was plenty of evidence most MPs got on pretty well with each other "in the clubhouse" - I saw Dowden and Rayner talking amicably and also Hunt and Reeves. I sometimes think MPs have more in common with each other than with their parties.
I believe Johnson and Starmer quite genuinely despise each other. It depends on who they are whether they get on well in the clubhouse, I think.
Yes, I think Starmer dislikes Johnson for being a shameless liar who has coasted through life by being a Public Schoolboy jester, while Johnson dislikes Starmer for being a Puritan who sees straight through him.
Opposites can get on JRM and Jess Philips did in their TV programme, as did Portillo and Abbott, but they have to respect each other's views.
Jess Philips is someone I feel I ought to dislike but who I find strangely alluring and interesting with surprising depth of character and if met at a much younger age I would be prepared to put up with quite a lot of things I didn't much like to "make it work"
In contrast I find Angela Rayner wholly uninteresting and a bit offputting.
I don't think it is just down to what female characteristics give me the horn.
(disclaimer - not ever met or contacted either of them).
I was at school with Jess Philips (though I never knew her). Pretty sure her accent is fake or exaggerated, since almost no one at Grammar school in Birmingham at that time had a broad Birmingham accent. Cannot prove it though.
Question - who was the imposter Rishi Sunak who was a bristly nasty thin-skinned git?
I met Sunak in 2020 and was genuinely impressed by his warmth and normality. The Sunak who is now Leader of the Opposition is the same man.
Once he became PM something crazy happened to him, transforming the nice Rishi into the idiot disaster Rishi.
Every Tory who loses big time and is no longer a threat gets this sort of praise heaped on them. William Hague and Tony Blair all being nice to one another after Hague resigned and Hague going on HIGNFY, Theresa May widely recognised as being a good sort attending the cricket. They might be more relaxed in manner because the pressure is off, but it tells a far bigger story about the observers than the observed. Sunak was a crap, overpromoted leader. He tried to do chummy and matey, and it was widely derided - he retreated behind a bully podium because it was a way of using his perceived merits (incumbency, good at maths) to his advantage. Staged family picnics and being 'real' in Tescos would have got him booted out quicker, as ScottP has said.
The truth is some believe or want an adversarial relationship which doesn't exist. I've not seen any mention anywhere of any personal animosity between Sunak and Starmer. One of the main causes of the Coalition was the excellent personal relationship between Cameron and Clegg.
Today was plenty of evidence most MPs got on pretty well with each other "in the clubhouse" - I saw Dowden and Rayner talking amicably and also Hunt and Reeves. I sometimes think MPs have more in common with each other than with their parties.
I believe Johnson and Starmer quite genuinely despise each other. It depends on who they are whether they get on well in the clubhouse, I think.
Yes, I think Starmer dislikes Johnson for being a shameless liar who has coasted through life by being a Public Schoolboy jester, while Johnson dislikes Starmer for being a Puritan who sees straight through him.
Opposites can get on JRM and Jess Philips did in their TV programme, as did Portillo and Abbott, but they have to respect each other's views.
Jess Philips is someone I feel I ought to dislike but who I find strangely alluring and interesting with surprising depth of character and if met at a much younger age I would be prepared to put up with quite a lot of things I didn't much like to "make it work"
In contrast I find Angela Rayner wholly uninteresting and a bit offputting.
I don't think it is just down to what female characteristics give me the horn.
(disclaimer - not ever met or contacted either of them).
I was at school with Jess Philips (though I never knew her). Pretty sure her accent is fake or exaggerated, since almost no one at Grammar school in Birmingham at that time had a broad Birmingham accent. Cannot prove it though.
People who were educated at Grammar Schools, especially if they had non-Grammar friends can have two accents. One for school and maybe home and another for the street.
A more extreme example was highland children who spoke Gaelic at home, but English at school, under the threat of the belt.
Then there is Welsh Children who spoke English at Home and School. Except in Welsh Lessons and at home when they didn't want their parents to understand what they were saying (said parents generation not having been subjected to compulsory Welsh).
My wife’s friend in Ukraine was spurred on to take English classes, after her teenage kids started speaking it to each other at home!
Check this out. It's so ridiculous that if you saw it in a film you wouldn't find it plausible.
In addition, briefers told lawmakers Crooks was identified as a person of interest a full 62 minutes before the shooting took place.
The timeline was briefed as follows:
5:10 Crooks was first identified as a person of interest 5:30 Crooks was spotted with a rangefinder 5:52 Crooks was spotted on the roof by Secret Service 6:02 Trump takes the stage 6:12 Crooks fires first shots
The praise of Rishi for is Kings Speech response is interesting and very reminiscent of 1997.
A lot of people felt John Major really came into his own in the hours, days and weeks after Tony Blair destroyed him... After years of impotence and inertia from September 1992 onwards.
Is there something about losing offce that frees a politician from all their burdens? Or is it just that Brits love a loser?
I love that Major went from meeting the Queen pretty much straight to the Oval to spend the day at the cricket.
Today I had a reminder of the most baffling mystery in modern Britain: why the mobile network along our mainland railway lines is so utterly shite.
If SKS can sort that then he’ll have been a successful PM.
Because they go through rural areas. It would require a specific "make the railway corridors have good reception" mandate, presumably.
It's shite in Germany and Spain too. Can't speak for other places.
It’s pretty much perfect on the Japanese Shinkansen, even in tunnels. Pretty good in Switzerland too.
I’d say it’s worse on the mainlines than in an average countryside spot in England. Presumably due to cuttings. But yes, it requires specific action to address. Which must surely be a no brainer from a GDP and productivity point of view. And the railways are full of wires, posts and towers already. Just get the MNOs to string along some mini-5G towers.
I love Japan, and visit most years, but they have a very high tolerance for urban (and rural) ugliness. So they'll stick a tower anywhere.
Good.
What's wrong with that?
The ugly part.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
People being able to have their own home, be able to work, be able to do what they need to do is more beautiful than keeping a superficial skin-deep pristine beauty behind which people are unable to do any of that.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't. Beauty in people serves a purpose - it helps find the best possible breeding partners. Beauty in buildings is the same - we like thick walls, deep set windows, natural materials, green gardens, rich ornament, columns and arches, because they connote safety, security, plenty, strength - good places to live in and reproduce. It is precisely NOT a matter of personal taste.
It absolutely IS a matter of personal taste.
It also changes over time. Which serves changing purposes.
In the past being overweight was a sign of beauty as in an era of most going hungry, being prosperous enough to be well fed made you more likely to survive and thus more attractive.
Similarly with buildings many old buildings we find beautiful today were considered ugly when they were first built, but are now considered classics and beautiful. Again serving a purpose, if a building is old enough to have survived hundreds of years its more likely to still be able to be here serving its function further in the future.
Do you have some examples of buildings that are now widely regarded as beautiful that were decried as ugly at the time? Not dismissing your point, I'd just be interested.
At what time? It all goes through fashion cycles.
'Georgian Houses' have gone through several, as have the different types of Victorian, and normal urban terraces.
And since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not an objective quality, that's how it always has been and always will be.
No they haven't. They have become unfashionable, and fashionable again, but they were not regarded as ugly when they were built, before coming to be seen as beautiful.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
Hmmm. He will have known they would have looked through his internet history, so doesn't do much to quell the conspiracy theorists.
I mean nothing will quell the conspiracy theories, that's not how it works
If anything, the more information the conspiracy theorists have, the more they have to craft conspiracy theories around. Evidence or information that goes against a particular theory can just be safely ignored or called false.
I know we have a few people on here who defend conspiracy theories and theorists, and even a couple of theorists themselves, but most conspiracy theories are just Z-Grade unintelligent rubbish. And they are always damaging.
Having said that, there are conspiracies. Just nowhere near as many as conspiracy theorists like to make out.
Surely one of the lessons of this and of the very good comments in the thread below is 'don't be party political'.
Judge each issue on its merits irrespective of which side proposed it or what your 'wing' generally thinks of it. In the modern world with all its connectivity at our finger tips there is no excuse for anyone with a reasonable interest in politics and in the future of their country, not to do a bit of basic research and form their own independent opinion.
This is really just another example of how parties damage our democracy. My party right or wrong is just as dumb as my country right or wrong.
See the USA for this concept taken to the extreme, where the Congresscritters will vote for or against pretty much anything based purely on who proposed it, and the media commentators will either love or hate the idea based on who proposed it - irrespective of its merits.
This was a particular problem with the Ukraine war. The Republicans talked themselves in to opposing it because it was something the democrats were proposing.
There's an element of that but also...
Payback for when Green T-Shirt wouldn't play ball over finding or, at least, fabricating Hunter/Burisma dirt. Genuine isolationist sentiment. The fucking Russians aren't going turn up with an invasion fleet off Rockaway Beach so why should the US spend billions on a proxy way against them. If Europe sees them as a problem let them deal with it. Tech bros like Thiel, Musk, etc see China as the real threat and pissing around in a particularly unlovely corner of Eastern Europe distracts from countering that threat and a Russian defeat or collapse would be greatly to China's strategic advantage.
Surely one of the lessons of this and of the very good comments in the thread below is 'don't be party political'.
Judge each issue on its merits irrespective of which side proposed it or what your 'wing' generally thinks of it. In the modern world with all its connectivity at our finger tips there is no excuse for anyone with a reasonable interest in politics and in the future of their country, not to do a bit of basic research and form their own independent opinion.
This is really just another example of how parties damage our democracy. My party right or wrong is just as dumb as my country right or wrong.
See the USA for this concept taken to the extreme, where the Congresscritters will vote for or against pretty much anything based purely on who proposed it, and the media commentators will either love or hate the idea based on who proposed it - irrespective of its merits.
This was a particular problem with the Ukraine war. The Republicans talked themselves in to opposing it because it was something the democrats were proposing.
There's an element of that but also...
Payback for when Green T-Shirt wouldn't play ball over finding or, at least, fabricating Hunter/Burisma dirt. Genuine isolationist sentiment. The fucking Russians aren't going turn up with an invasion fleet off Rockaway Beach so why should the US spend billions on a proxy way against them. If Europe sees them as a problem let them deal with it. Tech bros like Thiel, Musk, etc see China as the real threat and pissing around in a particularly unlovely corner of Eastern Europe distracts from countering that threat and a Russian defeat or collapse would be greatly to China's strategic advantage.
So you're saying Zelenskyy(*) should have fabricated evidence against Biden? It's a view, I guess.
The thing about US isolationism is that it always delays the fight until that fight is much more costly to fight. It did in WW1; it did in WW2. You would have thought they would have learnt that lesson.
(*) You could try using his name once in a while. But I guess that doesn't make you feel as 'edgy' ...
I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Incidents such as you describe are almost inevitable, given the rush! rush! rush! to not just count votes into the wee hours after polls close, but also to finalize the results immediately or close enough.
In USA election authorities also strive to count ballots quickly BUT also have time after Election Night to canvass the returns for errors and omissions, such as what reportedly happened in Putney.
ADDENDUM - AND you are correct, strange drop in turnout, or in "ballot falloff" in US elections (voters who cast ballots but who skip voting on some candidate or measures) should be investigated . . . preferably BEFORE results are certified.
Have personally been involved in two elections, where it turned out unusual falloff patterns were due to perfectly legitimate votes NOT being tabulated; as in case of Putney the ultimate result was unchanged because the uncounted votes occurred randomly.
I agree that they should slow down a bit on election night and do things more carefully.
Legally the declaration, once made, IS the result, so although one can understand why Wandsworth want to correct their error and publish the amended figures, removing the declared result from their website like that is a bit dodgy.
I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Most probably this was a case of entering the results into a spreadsheet and having a "totals" row at the bottom, with the person selecting the rows to be totalled accidentally missed the top or bottom row off the selected rows. Everyone's done it when using a spreadsheet, but a double check usually catches the mistake.
They will have fished out the spreadsheet used last time, when there were four candidates, and edited in extra rows for this time’s seven. Or something similar with the latest set of polling districts. As you say, somewhere along the line the old totals row wasn’t correctly amended to cover all the extra rows properly.
I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Most probably this was a case of entering the results into a spreadsheet and having a "totals" row at the bottom, with the person selecting the rows to be totalled accidentally missed the top or bottom row off the selected rows. Everyone's done it when using a spreadsheet, but a double check usually catches the mistake.
They will have fished out the spreadsheet used last time, when there were four candidates, and edited in extra rows for this time’s seven. Or something similar with the latest set of polling districts. As you say, somewhere along the line the old totals row wasn’t correctly amended to cover all the extra rows properly.
Whoops. That’s rather embarrassing for the Returning Officer. What would have happened if the missing votes had materially affected the result, with the new MP already sworn in?
Today I had a reminder of the most baffling mystery in modern Britain: why the mobile network along our mainland railway lines is so utterly shite.
If SKS can sort that then he’ll have been a successful PM.
Because they go through rural areas. It would require a specific "make the railway corridors have good reception" mandate, presumably.
It's shite in Germany and Spain too. Can't speak for other places.
It’s pretty much perfect on the Japanese Shinkansen, even in tunnels. Pretty good in Switzerland too.
I’d say it’s worse on the mainlines than in an average countryside spot in England. Presumably due to cuttings. But yes, it requires specific action to address. Which must surely be a no brainer from a GDP and productivity point of view. And the railways are full of wires, posts and towers already. Just get the MNOs to string along some mini-5G towers.
I love Japan, and visit most years, but they have a very high tolerance for urban (and rural) ugliness. So they'll stick a tower anywhere.
Good.
What's wrong with that?
The ugly part.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
People being able to have their own home, be able to work, be able to do what they need to do is more beautiful than keeping a superficial skin-deep pristine beauty behind which people are unable to do any of that.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't. Beauty in people serves a purpose - it helps find the best possible breeding partners. Beauty in buildings is the same - we like thick walls, deep set windows, natural materials, green gardens, rich ornament, columns and arches, because they connote safety, security, plenty, strength - good places to live in and reproduce. It is precisely NOT a matter of personal taste.
It absolutely IS a matter of personal taste.
It also changes over time. Which serves changing purposes.
In the past being overweight was a sign of beauty as in an era of most going hungry, being prosperous enough to be well fed made you more likely to survive and thus more attractive.
Similarly with buildings many old buildings we find beautiful today were considered ugly when they were first built, but are now considered classics and beautiful. Again serving a purpose, if a building is old enough to have survived hundreds of years its more likely to still be able to be here serving its function further in the future.
Do you have some examples of buildings that are now widely regarded as beautiful that were decried as ugly at the time? Not dismissing your point, I'd just be interested.
At what time? It all goes through fashion cycles.
'Georgian Houses' have gone through several, as have the different types of Victorian, and normal urban terraces.
And since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not an objective quality, that's how it always has been and always will be.
No they haven't. They have become unfashionable, and fashionable again, but they were not regarded as ugly when they were built, before coming to be seen as beautiful.
I think it's a bit of a futile debate. The stuff about "we like thick walls, deep set windows, natural materials, green gardens, rich ornament, columns and arches, because they connote safety, security, plenty, strength" betrays itself - that's a series of personal and cultural judgements pretending to be objective.
As for individual buildings, perhaps most of them. Different opinions amongst the population shows exactly the same thing. For modern buildings consider Coventry Cathedral or the British Library. Some have called the BL Stalinist, but I think it is one of the most beautiful buildings in London - in form, presence, function. Or consider all those Mansions and place sin town centres demolished in the 1950s-1970s.
Compare passive houses. They were built like that in say 198x and 199x, with a feel like Hobbit Holes or houses made from beaten earth. Since 200xor 201x we aren't forced to build them like that, as technology has improved and most people want light and perceived space not something like a cave. And surprise surprise very few build like Hobbit Holes any more.
IMO human especially female 'beauty' is exactly the same - to do with personal views which are conditioned by fashion / culture. Now your stereotypical average influencer goes for lips and buttocks pumped up like the Michelin Man; compare that with the "lissom" look favoured in the not so recent past, or 1990s 'heroine chic'. I'd suggest a couple of cultural causes of the current trend may be in reaction to create an extreme version of "feminine" which is different from both trans / gay androgyny, and from what is regarded as "fit" in the trained sense.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
No they are ticking boxes to get a compliant solution at the lowest possible price, so their rivals don't win the bid.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone, that pole is probably to ensure compliance with some other regulation or standard.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
No they are ticking boxes to get a compliant solution at the lowest possible price, so their rivals don't win the bid.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
If it takes 10 minutes to get the disabled person off the bus that impacts the route for a long period of time.
But equally the problem would only be discovered when reality hit..
IMO human especially female 'beauty' is exactly the same - to do with personal views which are conditioned by fashion / culture. Now your stereotypical average influencer goes for lips and buttocks pumped up like the Michelin Man; compare that with the "lissom" look favoured in the not so recent past, or 1990s 'heroine chic'. I'd suggest a couple of cultural causes of the current trend may be in reaction to create an extreme version of "feminine" which is different from both trans / gay androgyny, and from what is regarded as "fit" in the trained sense.
The praise of Rishi for is Kings Speech response is interesting and very reminiscent of 1997.
A lot of people felt John Major really came into his own in the hours, days and weeks after Tony Blair destroyed him... After years of impotence and inertia from September 1992 onwards.
Is there something about losing offce that frees a politician from all their burdens? Or is it just that Brits love a loser?
I love that Major went from meeting the Queen pretty much straight to the Oval to spend the day at the cricket.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
No they are ticking boxes to get a compliant solution at the lowest possible price, so their rivals don't win the bid.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
If it takes 10 minutes to get the disabled person off the bus that impacts the route for a long period of time.
But equally the problem would only be discovered when reality hit..
A private-sector supplier will build to the standards required, and no more. They’re not going to provide ‘gold-plated’ wheelchair access at the expense of seats or cost to themselves, especially in a competitive tender environment.
It’s up to the customer to specify exactly what is required in advance of the bid process.
Surely one of the lessons of this and of the very good comments in the thread below is 'don't be party political'.
Judge each issue on its merits irrespective of which side proposed it or what your 'wing' generally thinks of it. In the modern world with all its connectivity at our finger tips there is no excuse for anyone with a reasonable interest in politics and in the future of their country, not to do a bit of basic research and form their own independent opinion.
This is really just another example of how parties damage our democracy. My party right or wrong is just as dumb as my country right or wrong.
See the USA for this concept taken to the extreme, where the Congresscritters will vote for or against pretty much anything based purely on who proposed it, and the media commentators will either love or hate the idea based on who proposed it - irrespective of its merits.
This was a particular problem with the Ukraine war. The Republicans talked themselves in to opposing it because it was something the democrats were proposing.
There's an element of that but also...
Payback for when Green T-Shirt wouldn't play ball over finding or, at least, fabricating Hunter/Burisma dirt. Genuine isolationist sentiment. The fucking Russians aren't going turn up with an invasion fleet off Rockaway Beach so why should the US spend billions on a proxy way against them. If Europe sees them as a problem let them deal with it. Tech bros like Thiel, Musk, etc see China as the real threat and pissing around in a particularly unlovely corner of Eastern Europe distracts from countering that threat and a Russian defeat or collapse would be greatly to China's strategic advantage.
Quite a lot of that's pretty well on the money. Apart from the last paragraph.
You could make quite the opposite case about 'China's strategic advantage'. And Musk cares only about his business. Quite evidently he's happy to do business in China.
Who can change Biden's mind now. Aside from the obvious of Jill or Hunter probably only Clyburn.
The only two people in the world he listens to, according the NYT, are Jill and his sister Valerie.
This "Covid" bollocks sounds a bit suss.
A lot of it going round - and he's actually been out there meeting voters (aka disease vectors) recently. It would make a decent excuse for quitting, though.
.....Much of it done by Johnson and Truss. Interestingly I count 25 women in the shot and 18 men. That rebalance is one of the great advances of this parliament and something that hints the country might be moving forward on several fronts
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
No they are ticking boxes to get a compliant solution at the lowest possible price, so their rivals don't win the bid.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
If it takes 10 minutes to get the disabled person off the bus that impacts the route for a long period of time.
But equally the problem would only be discovered when reality hit..
A private-sector supplier will build to the standards required, and no more. They’re not going to provide ‘gold-plated’ wheelchair access at the expense of seats or cost to themselves, especially in a competitive tender environment.
It’s up to the customer to specify exactly what is required in advance of the bid process.
The issue is that they're supposed to provide disabled access. Someone may not agree with that, until they are disabled.
Since they need to have that provision, it makes sense to make it as usable and non-disruptive to both the disabled passenger and everybody else. A well-designed space can work for everyone, including (as an example) those with pushchairs or prams.
Surely one of the lessons of this and of the very good comments in the thread below is 'don't be party political'.
Judge each issue on its merits irrespective of which side proposed it or what your 'wing' generally thinks of it. In the modern world with all its connectivity at our finger tips there is no excuse for anyone with a reasonable interest in politics and in the future of their country, not to do a bit of basic research and form their own independent opinion.
This is really just another example of how parties damage our democracy. My party right or wrong is just as dumb as my country right or wrong.
See the USA for this concept taken to the extreme, where the Congresscritters will vote for or against pretty much anything based purely on who proposed it, and the media commentators will either love or hate the idea based on who proposed it - irrespective of its merits.
This was a particular problem with the Ukraine war. The Republicans talked themselves in to opposing it because it was something the democrats were proposing.
There's an element of that but also...
Payback for when Green T-Shirt wouldn't play ball over finding or, at least, fabricating Hunter/Burisma dirt. Genuine isolationist sentiment. The fucking Russians aren't going turn up with an invasion fleet off Rockaway Beach so why should the US spend billions on a proxy way against them. If Europe sees them as a problem let them deal with it. Tech bros like Thiel, Musk, etc see China as the real threat and pissing around in a particularly unlovely corner of Eastern Europe distracts from countering that threat and a Russian defeat or collapse would be greatly to China's strategic advantage.
Quite a lot of that's pretty well on the money. Apart from the last paragraph.
You could make quite the opposite case about 'China's strategic advantage'. And Musk cares only about his business. Quite evidently he's happy to do business in China.
Trump is just pure Isolationist. Its not just NATO, he's ready to pull the plug on Taiwan too.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
No they are ticking boxes to get a compliant solution at the lowest possible price, so their rivals don't win the bid.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
If it takes 10 minutes to get the disabled person off the bus that impacts the route for a long period of time.
But equally the problem would only be discovered when reality hit..
In London, [text deleted] here is a short video of a powered wheelchair user showing single and double-decker buses, although ime most single-decker buses are laid out the same as double-deckers, with separate entry and exit doors.
Other issues are: powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters are getting bigger; sometimes there's more than one; the wheelchair space is also the babies' buggy/pushchair/pram space, and there are a lot more of them, and sometimes this can lead to disputes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4n4wSuIpE
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
If you want me to I can bore for England on this one.
For buses they are defined around a thing called the "Reference Wheelchair", which is based on mobility aids from the 1990s I think. Here is more recent Govt research with data tables about how many won't fit (a lot) from 2021/2, but meanwhile all the buses are being replaced and it has not been put in place. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reference-wheelchair-standard-and-transport-design
The transit companies including rail usually like to work to the utter, utter legal minimum - just like LHAs building cycle facilities with no powerful local lobby groups, paint the lane, share the existing footpath and tick the box. The difference is between viewing something as a cost to be minimised or an investment to provide a full service. I'm watching on this one because fleet replacement time is the efficient time to do changes, but given the mentality requires some regulation - which they did not do under the last Govt.
Even to gain a priority right to occupy a wheelchair space took a legal action at Supreme Court level. And companies have fought it off enough that drivers have to little more than ask nicely. Karen refuses to move her pushchair, the driver won't take action, and the wheelchair user is left at the bus stop - happens quite regularly. Then what happens is that the wheelchair user gives up on public transport and stays at home. The problem is that if a service cannot be relied upon, then a vulnerable person can be dumped - which is not an acceptable risk. Some things could help, such as better bus services - but they aren't a fix.
Today I had a reminder of the most baffling mystery in modern Britain: why the mobile network along our mainland railway lines is so utterly shite.
If SKS can sort that then he’ll have been a successful PM.
Because they go through rural areas. It would require a specific "make the railway corridors have good reception" mandate, presumably.
It's shite in Germany and Spain too. Can't speak for other places.
It’s pretty much perfect on the Japanese Shinkansen, even in tunnels. Pretty good in Switzerland too.
I’d say it’s worse on the mainlines than in an average countryside spot in England. Presumably due to cuttings. But yes, it requires specific action to address. Which must surely be a no brainer from a GDP and productivity point of view. And the railways are full of wires, posts and towers already. Just get the MNOs to string along some mini-5G towers.
I love Japan, and visit most years, but they have a very high tolerance for urban (and rural) ugliness. So they'll stick a tower anywhere.
Good.
What's wrong with that?
The ugly part.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
People being able to have their own home, be able to work, be able to do what they need to do is more beautiful than keeping a superficial skin-deep pristine beauty behind which people are unable to do any of that.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't. Beauty in people serves a purpose - it helps find the best possible breeding partners. Beauty in buildings is the same - we like thick walls, deep set windows, natural materials, green gardens, rich ornament, columns and arches, because they connote safety, security, plenty, strength - good places to live in and reproduce. It is precisely NOT a matter of personal taste.
It absolutely IS a matter of personal taste.
It also changes over time. Which serves changing purposes.
In the past being overweight was a sign of beauty as in an era of most going hungry, being prosperous enough to be well fed made you more likely to survive and thus more attractive.
Similarly with buildings many old buildings we find beautiful today were considered ugly when they were first built, but are now considered classics and beautiful. Again serving a purpose, if a building is old enough to have survived hundreds of years its more likely to still be able to be here serving its function further in the future.
Do you have some examples of buildings that are now widely regarded as beautiful that were decried as ugly at the time? Not dismissing your point, I'd just be interested.
At what time? It all goes through fashion cycles.
'Georgian Houses' have gone through several, as have the different types of Victorian, and normal urban terraces.
And since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not an objective quality, that's how it always has been and always will be.
No they haven't. They have become unfashionable, and fashionable again, but they were not regarded as ugly when they were built, before coming to be seen as beautiful.
I think it's a bit of a futile debate. The stuff about "we like thick walls, deep set windows, natural materials, green gardens, rich ornament, columns and arches, because they connote safety, security, plenty, strength" betrays itself - that's a series of personal and cultural judgements pretending to be objective.
As for individual buildings, perhaps most of them. Different opinions amongst the population shows exactly the same thing. For modern buildings consider Coventry Cathedral or the British Library. Some have called the BL Stalinist, but I think it is one of the most beautiful buildings in London - in form, presence, function. Or consider all those Mansions and place sin town centres demolished in the 1950s-1970s.
Compare passive houses. They were built like that in say 198x and 199x, with a feel like Hobbit Holes or houses made from beaten earth. Since 200xor 201x we aren't forced to build them like that, as technology has improved and most people want light and perceived space not something like a cave. And surprise surprise very few build like Hobbit Holes any more.
IMO human especially female 'beauty' is exactly the same - to do with personal views which are conditioned by fashion / culture. Now your stereotypical average influencer goes for lips and buttocks pumped up like the Michelin Man; compare that with the "lissom" look favoured in the not so recent past, or 1990s 'heroine chic'. I'd suggest a couple of cultural causes of the current trend may be in reaction to create an extreme version of "feminine" which is different from both trans / gay androgyny, and from what is regarded as "fit" in the trained sense.
Fashions change. Aspects of beauty become exaggerated and become ends in themselves, like powdered . But it is an overlay - the basics don't. Consider the trend of using make up to 'contour' the face and mimic high cheekbones, or the trend of injections to do the same. Well developed bone structure, even teeth shiny thick hair, generous hip/waist ratio, and significant assets upstairs, all echo down the ages as markers of beauty - of course they do, for good evolutionary reasons. To deny it is futile and ridiculous.
It is simply a logical surmise that our opinions of buildings, which have also changed little in fundamentals over the years, have similar antecedents.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
No they are ticking boxes to get a compliant solution at the lowest possible price, so their rivals don't win the bid.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
If it takes 10 minutes to get the disabled person off the bus that impacts the route for a long period of time.
But equally the problem would only be discovered when reality hit..
Of course with a suitable bus that can be used by all bus passengers it takes seconds.
But that is one that has to be driven from standards and regulations, to take the drive for "lowest possible price" out of the equation where it undermines quality of life.
There's a philosophical problem there as well - in the UK disabled people are not "them who we do things to" (such as "getting them off the bus"); our values are that disabled people are a part of "us" and we design our society for everyone. That has been the perspective in law since approximately the 1980s. Technically it's an aspect of what is called the "medical model" or "social model" of disability.
Apparently, according to the BBC, there's a thing called the "Better Buses Bill" in the King's Speech.
Boris would be proud.
That one interests me.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
First Bus: A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
A few months back I helped a man in a wheelchair off a bus on the way back from Cambridge. He was in the wheelchair space, but the driver and I had to manhandle the man and chair around a pole in order to get him out. It was inconvenient, wasted time and perhaps most importantly, not very dignified for the man.
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
No they are ticking boxes to get a compliant solution at the lowest possible price, so their rivals don't win the bid.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
If it takes 10 minutes to get the disabled person off the bus that impacts the route for a long period of time.
But equally the problem would only be discovered when reality hit..
Of course with a suitable bus that can be used by all bus passengers it takes seconds.
But that is one that has to be driven from standards and regulations, to take the drive for "lowest possible price" out of the equation where it undermines quality of life.
There's a philosophical problem there as well - in the UK disabled people are not "them who we do things to" (such as "getting them off the bus"); our values are that disabled people are a part of "us" and we design our society for everyone. That has been the perspective in law since approximately the 1980s. Technically it's an aspect of what is called the "medical model" or "social model" of disability.
See my other comment for more detail.
1) wheelchairs take up space 2) seating space on buses is valuable 3) why not folding seats? Keep the designated space, but have an extra space of folding seats?
Or is that utterly impossible? Just like staggering the school terms. As they do in several European countries.
I don't believe it. Has the huge error in Putney been pointed out yet on here? Turns out 6,500 votes were not reported on election night in the constituency, about 10% of the total. It didn't affect the result or order of candidates, but a 17% drop in turnout always looked a bit unusual. It looks like another spreadsheet error, like there was in Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physically counting the votes.
Most probably this was a case of entering the results into a spreadsheet and having a "totals" row at the bottom, with the person selecting the rows to be totalled accidentally missed the top or bottom row off the selected rows. Everyone's done it when using a spreadsheet, but a double check usually catches the mistake.
They will have fished out the spreadsheet used last time, when there were four candidates, and edited in extra rows for this time’s seven. Or something similar with the latest set of polling districts. As you say, somewhere along the line the old totals row wasn’t correctly amended to cover all the extra rows properly.
Whoops. That’s rather embarrassing for the Returning Officer. What would have happened if the missing votes had materially affected the result, with the new MP already sworn in?
Comments
Glorious Image.
A lot of work went into making that happen.
So you'd be wrong.
It's a good header, but it might also have noted that.
Though it's likely to make him unavailable for campaigning for another week or two.
He really should give up. Something like two thirds of Democratic voters recently polled think so.
It didn't just work as a great Bond movie, it worked as a great movie in it's own right. Anyone coming into it with no previous understanding of the franchise could still enjoy it in it's own terms.... The only I reason I watched it was because of Sam Mendes and Adele but I'm pleased I did lol!
Am still waiting for a Danny Boyle directed Bond though.
"Exercise increased caution in the United Kingdom due to terrorism (sic).
Country Summary: Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in the United Kingdom. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, local government facilities, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, major sporting and cultural events, educational institutions, airports, and other public areas."
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/united-kingdom-travel-advisory.html
In fairness, I think the yanks should probably be more scared of Scousers, than terrorists.
A lot of people felt John Major really came into his own in the hours, days and weeks after Tony Blair destroyed him... After years of impotence and inertia from September 1992 onwards.
Is there something about losing offce that frees a politician from all their burdens? Or is it just that Brits love a loser?
Fleur Anderson 20952
Lee Roberts 10011
Kieran Mcarthy 5189
Mcentee 3182
Hunter 581
Khoo 433
Burford-Connole 289
Total 42737
Lee Roberts 10011
Kieran Mcarthy 5189
Mcentee 3182
Hunter 581
Khoo 433
Burford-Connole 289
Total 42737
https://polymarket.com/event/democratic-nominee-2024?tid=1721262970471
1) I am standing down as president and nominee, the new president and nominee is Kamala Harris.
2) I am standing down as nominee, I will recommend to my delegates to vote for Kamala Harris.
3) I am standing down as nominee, I will ask the DNC to propose a process to select a nominee with the best chance of beating Trump, and I will recommend to my delegates to vote for that person.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.178163685
There is a larger difference on Betfair's election winner market (Kamala 5.9 vs Biden 12; Trump 1.51 partly because we now know Trump is GOP nominee).
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/politics/secret-service-trump-shooting.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8E0.FLsb.nIYqUnk-7wcq
Amess's was a political murder, but not a party-political one. It might be that the shooting this weekend was not even an overt political act, but a rage at the world and/or a cry for infamy (as was Reagan's).
Reckon the answers is, NOTHING!!!
There’s also a rumour going around that the USSS chief has been told by her boss (DHS chief Mayorkas) not to appear in front of Congress next week.
Of course 'they' will never admit it.
We even have a couple on this board.
Currently there's a Gadarene Rush to get electric buses in, but wheelchair space requirements are still stuck in the 1990s, and they are *always* - like everything else - done to the absolute minimum.
So a lot won't fit, and some only have one space (so send your partner on the next bus an hour later), and we just wired a lot of this in for another 25 years.
Compare York and Manchester:
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/23751337.flick-williams-says-first-york-buses-disappointment/
First Bus:
A spokesperson for First York said: “The bus design we selected from the manufacturer meets all disability access requirements. The position of the poles has also been modified after consultation with disability groups.
“So they basically held an intervention with Biden, and it didn't work, so now they're leaking the details publicly.”
It made me wonder whether the bus designers had actually tried their disabled provision space with a wide range of disabled people. (On the other hand, ISTR the bus had lowering suspension that enabled level entry. Might have that mixed up with another bus though.)
NEJM: In older, mostly white vaccinated males (VA population), still about a 3.5% chance of Long Covid..
So doesn't alter the odds massively.
He should hand on the baton; most Democrats want him to - but it's still 50/50.
I know we have a few people on here who defend conspiracy theories and theorists, and even a couple of theorists themselves, but most conspiracy theories are just Z-Grade unintelligent rubbish. And they are always damaging.
Having said that, there are conspiracies. Just nowhere near as many as conspiracy theorists like to make out.
Payback for when Green T-Shirt wouldn't play ball over finding or, at least, fabricating Hunter/Burisma dirt.
Genuine isolationist sentiment. The fucking Russians aren't going turn up with an invasion fleet off Rockaway Beach so why should the US spend billions on a proxy way against them. If Europe sees them as a problem let them deal with it.
Tech bros like Thiel, Musk, etc see China as the real threat and pissing around in a particularly unlovely corner of Eastern Europe distracts from countering that threat and a Russian defeat or collapse would be greatly to China's strategic advantage.
The thing about US isolationism is that it always delays the fight until that fight is much more costly to fight. It did in WW1; it did in WW2. You would have thought they would have learnt that lesson.
(*) You could try using his name once in a while. But I guess that doesn't make you feel as 'edgy' ...
This "Covid" bollocks sounds a bit suss.
As for individual buildings, perhaps most of them. Different opinions amongst the population shows exactly the same thing. For modern buildings consider Coventry Cathedral or the British Library. Some have called the BL Stalinist, but I think it is one of the most beautiful buildings in London - in form, presence, function. Or consider all those Mansions and place sin town centres demolished in the 1950s-1970s.
Compare passive houses. They were built like that in say 198x and 199x, with a feel like Hobbit Holes or houses made from beaten earth. Since 200xor 201x we aren't forced to build them like that, as technology has improved and most people want light and perceived space not something like a cave. And surprise surprise very few build like Hobbit Holes any more.
IMO human especially female 'beauty' is exactly the same - to do with personal views which are conditioned by fashion / culture. Now your stereotypical average influencer goes for lips and buttocks pumped up like the Michelin Man; compare that with the "lissom" look favoured in the not so recent past, or 1990s 'heroine chic'. I'd suggest a couple of cultural causes of the current trend may be in reaction to create an extreme version of "feminine" which is different from both trans / gay androgyny, and from what is regarded as "fit" in the trained sense.
The sheer amount of regulation and proportion of overall design and build costs it bakes in mean that is the focus of everyone, that pole is probably to ensure compliance with some other regulation or standard.
Operators don't much care because said people cost far more than they bring in in revenue.
But equally the problem would only be discovered when reality hit..
NEW THREAD
It’s up to the customer to specify exactly what is required in advance of the bid process.
Apart from the last paragraph.
You could make quite the opposite case about 'China's strategic advantage'.
And Musk cares only about his business. Quite evidently he's happy to do business in China.
It would make a decent excuse for quitting, though.
Since they need to have that provision, it makes sense to make it as usable and non-disruptive to both the disabled passenger and everybody else. A well-designed space can work for everyone, including (as an example) those with pushchairs or prams.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/17/donald-trump-taiwan-pay-us-defence-china-national-convention
Other issues are: powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters are getting bigger; sometimes there's more than one; the wheelchair space is also the babies' buggy/pushchair/pram space, and there are a lot more of them, and sometimes this can lead to disputes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4n4wSuIpE
For buses they are defined around a thing called the "Reference Wheelchair", which is based on mobility aids from the 1990s I think. Here is more recent Govt research with data tables about how many won't fit (a lot) from 2021/2, but meanwhile all the buses are being replaced and it has not been put in place.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reference-wheelchair-standard-and-transport-design
The transit companies including rail usually like to work to the utter, utter legal minimum - just like LHAs building cycle facilities with no powerful local lobby groups, paint the lane, share the existing footpath and tick the box. The difference is between viewing something as a cost to be minimised or an investment to provide a full service. I'm watching on this one because fleet replacement time is the efficient time to do changes, but given the mentality requires some regulation - which they did not do under the last Govt.
Even to gain a priority right to occupy a wheelchair space took a legal action at Supreme Court level. And companies have fought it off enough that drivers have to little more than ask nicely. Karen refuses to move her pushchair, the driver won't take action, and the wheelchair user is left at the bus stop - happens quite regularly. Then what happens is that the wheelchair user gives up on public transport and stays at home. The problem is that if a service cannot be relied upon, then a vulnerable person can be dumped - which is not an acceptable risk. Some things could help, such as better bus services - but they aren't a fix.
Here's an account of the guy Doug Paulley who has been involved in some of these:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/30/doug-paulley-not-my-benefit-tackling-injustice
It is simply a logical surmise that our opinions of buildings, which have also changed little in fundamentals over the years, have similar antecedents.
But that is one that has to be driven from standards and regulations, to take the drive for "lowest possible price" out of the equation where it undermines quality of life.
There's a philosophical problem there as well - in the UK disabled people are not "them who we do things to" (such as "getting them off the bus"); our values are that disabled people are a part of "us" and we design our society for everyone. That has been the perspective in law since approximately the 1980s. Technically it's an aspect of what is called the "medical model" or "social model" of disability.
See my other comment for more detail.
2) seating space on buses is valuable
3) why not folding seats? Keep the designated space, but have an extra space of folding seats?
Or is that utterly impossible? Just like staggering the school terms. As they do in several European countries.