'Stephen Chamberlain, once Mike Lynch's co-defendant in the U.S. fraud trial over the sale of Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard, has died after a road accident left him critically injured, days before Lynch went missing off the coast of Sicily, his lawyer said on Monday. Chamberlain - Autonomy's former vice president of finance alongside chief executive Lynch - was hit by a car in Cambridgeshire on Saturday morning and had been placed on life support, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters earlier on Monday.' https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/mike-lynchs-co-defendant-us-trial-critically-injured-uk-road-accident-source-2024-08-19/
Two deaths from one trial, mere weeks after their acquittal, is one heck of a coincidence.
For some reason, I wonder if an optolythic data rod was found at either scene.
What did Garak say about coincidences again?
That is not the only coincidence here. Not only did Lynch's co-defendant die, but also Mike Lynch went to the same school as Grace O'Malley Kumar, the student murdered in the Nottingham stabbings as she tried to protect her friend, and Daniel Anjorin, the schoolboy almost decapitated in April's Hainault sword attacks.
Sometimes, pace Leon, coincidences are just coincidences.
If it was an assassination it was a very stupid one. Blowing up the boss of Morgan Stanley is not a great health move.
But, given the rumours as to who might be behind it, I suppose that's not conclusive.
Bit sinister how they whipped up a storm with a waterspout. Do the Jewish space lasers have new capabilities?
Badenoch is a talented speaker and very articulate. I am coming to the view though, that she does not apply that talent in a way that shouts “party leader.”
She likes debating culture war topics. Great. Can she point to any great success in running her department, or a vision for the conservatism of the future? I think if they choose Badenoch they’re choosing someone who might give them a bit of a sugar rush at PMQs, but who I’m not convinced has what it takes to build back their electoral coalition.
FWIW (and its not much because I don't have a vote) that was the view I had come to as well. What the Tories need is someone who has a broader grasp and vision and I have yet to see that from her.
It's a pity because it's perfectly possible to hold Kemi's position on culture war topics at the same time as holding a voter friendly position on competent administration/wealth creation/provision of public services/all the other things voters want a government to do. Kemi's position is not by itself inimical to building vote-winning coalition for the Tories. But she needs to be seen to be interested in all the other things a government needs to do.
Hats off to Kemi. She manages to patronise the new Labour government for inevitably failing to meet the same housebuilding target her government failed to meet by a country mile
I think that speech sums up my views of Badenoch. It’s a clever opposition speech, it needles, it exposes fault lines, and it’s well delivered. But it essentially boils down to “we didn’t deliver as much as we should have done and you won’t either.”
Maybe it wasn’t the time for the grand vision, but I can see Badenoch falling into this pattern - being good at opposing, but having very little to say in return. We have just elected a government that didn’t say very much during the campaign or in opposition, but I am not sure it’s a tactic that any opposition party should rely on, nor one that should be particularly credited. Labour got away with it because they were the only credible choice for many, and the opposition was divided.
Labour's Ming Vase strategy, tedious and defensive as it was, did depend on them being gifted a Ming Vase by the 2019-24 government(s). Until the Conservative party comes to terms with how badly the public views them, pointing out the mediocrity of Starmer's Labour isn't going to get them very far.
And clever, needling speeches, well delivered... they were the stock in trade of another talented Conservative leader elected after a landslide defeat. Hague's result in 2001 shows the limits of that approach, and frankly he was easier for the public to warm to than Badenoch.
Yes, Hague is I think a useful parallel here.
I agree about Hague, but no cracks in Labour's edifice had really begun to show in 2001. There was no appetite for a change in Government. This Government has arrived fully shit, and I don't anticipate any improvement.
'Stephen Chamberlain, once Mike Lynch's co-defendant in the U.S. fraud trial over the sale of Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard, has died after a road accident left him critically injured, days before Lynch went missing off the coast of Sicily, his lawyer said on Monday. Chamberlain - Autonomy's former vice president of finance alongside chief executive Lynch - was hit by a car in Cambridgeshire on Saturday morning and had been placed on life support, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters earlier on Monday.' https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/mike-lynchs-co-defendant-us-trial-critically-injured-uk-road-accident-source-2024-08-19/
Two deaths from one trial, mere weeks after their acquittal, is one heck of a coincidence.
For some reason, I wonder if an optolythic data rod was found at either scene.
What did Garak say about coincidences again?
That is not the only coincidence here. Not only did Lynch's co-defendant die, but also Mike Lynch went to the same school as Grace O'Malley Kumar, the student murdered in the Nottingham stabbings as she tried to protect her friend, and Daniel Anjorin, the schoolboy almost decapitated in April's Hainault sword attacks.
Sometimes, pace Leon, coincidences are just coincidences.
If it was an assassination it was a very stupid one. Blowing up the boss of Morgan Stanley is not a great health move.
But, given the rumours as to who might be behind it, I suppose that's not conclusive.
Bit sinister how they whipped up a storm with a waterspout. Do the Jewish space lasers have new capabilities?
Well, if they did and were built by Hewlett Packard they would probably first not work, then randomly backfire, and finally accidentally create a whirlpool in the desert.
Saw my first large spider in the house this year today as a precursor to so-called Spider season, where Randy males look to breed and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice, glass over him, card underneath him and out he goes to sneak back in via the breathing gaps in the brickwork.
I don’t mind them, but they terrify my wife.
I thought I saw my first large spider in the house this year, but it turned out to be a ball of Mrs J's hair that she had thrown out of the shower and missed the bin....
WH24. Even though I’m relaxed given I think Harris will win the PV by over 5 pts and therefore has about a million paths in the EC I’ve done a deep dive into the states to see how that’s looking. Please ignore the following if you don’t value rigorous grinding sweat-infused ‘bottoms up’ analysis.
So the core fact is if she holds the rustbelt she wins the election. This is the backstop outcome. It’s not what she wants, there’s barely room to swing a cat, but she’d take it. Better, though, is to also hold or partially hold the sunbelt. Doing that creates some space. Eg if she loses GA but holds NV/AZ she can afford to lose MI or WI, although not both, so long as she doesn’t drop PA. If she holds just one of AZ/NV it’s still ok but it’s squeaky bum time. Holding AZ means she can afford to lose a rustbelt state so long as that state is WI. However if she holds only NV she’s back to having to cling like grim death to the whole of the rustbelt.
NV adds no value then? It does because what if she flips NC? This is more likely than her holding GA per the current betting. She’s 2.5 for NC and 2.8 for GA. Point is, if she flips NC, having won NV but lost GA/AZ, she can upend conventional wisdom by winning without PA. If she hadn’t got NV, even having flipped NC she would still require PA. That’s NV making its presence felt in no uncertain terms. A mere 6 votes but it could decide everything. Finally, a long shot that’s within the Overton window, if she wins NC and also FL she can lose all of Biden’s swing states, every last one of them, rustbelt and sunbelt, and still squeeze home by 272/266. There’ll be ructions down at Mar-a-Lago if that happens.
On that last point, the Democrats haven’t won N Carolina, while losing Pennsylvania, since 1932.
Though the difference between the 2 states is getting smaller every election. Obama won Pennsylvania by 10% more than N Carolina in 2008. In 2020 Pennsylvania Dem margin only 2.5% better than N Carolina. So IF that trend continued it wouldn't be that surprising if Pennsylvania has a slightly worse Dem margin than North Carolina this year. But in any case, they both look very close on current polling.
Badenoch is a talented speaker and very articulate. I am coming to the view though, that she does not apply that talent in a way that shouts “party leader.”
She likes debating culture war topics. Great. Can she point to any great success in running her department, or a vision for the conservatism of the future? I think if they choose Badenoch they’re choosing someone who might give them a bit of a sugar rush at PMQs, but who I’m not convinced has what it takes to build back their electoral coalition.
FWIW (and its not much because I don't have a vote) that was the view I had come to as well. What the Tories need is someone who has a broader grasp and vision and I have yet to see that from her.
It's a pity because it's perfectly possible to hold Kemi's position on culture war topics at the same time as holding a voter friendly position on competent administration/wealth creation/provision of public services/all the other things voters want a government to do. Kemi's position is not by itself inimical to building vote-winning coalition for the Tories. But she needs to be seen to be interested in all the other things a government needs to do.
Hats off to Kemi. She manages to patronise the new Labour government for inevitably failing to meet the same housebuilding target her government failed to meet by a country mile
I think that speech sums up my views of Badenoch. It’s a clever opposition speech, it needles, it exposes fault lines, and it’s well delivered. But it essentially boils down to “we didn’t deliver as much as we should have done and you won’t either.”
Maybe it wasn’t the time for the grand vision, but I can see Badenoch falling into this pattern - being good at opposing, but having very little to say in return. We have just elected a government that didn’t say very much during the campaign or in opposition, but I am not sure it’s a tactic that any opposition party should rely on, nor one that should be particularly credited. Labour got away with it because they were the only credible choice for many, and the opposition was divided.
Labour's Ming Vase strategy, tedious and defensive as it was, did depend on them being gifted a Ming Vase by the 2019-24 government(s). Until the Conservative party comes to terms with how badly the public views them, pointing out the mediocrity of Starmer's Labour isn't going to get them very far.
And clever, needling speeches, well delivered... they were the stock in trade of another talented Conservative leader elected after a landslide defeat. Hague's result in 2001 shows the limits of that approach, and frankly he was easier for the public to warm to than Badenoch.
Yes, Hague is I think a useful parallel here.
I agree about Hague, but no cracks in Labour's edifice had really begun to show in 2001. There was no appetite for a change in Government. This Government has arrived fully shit, and I don't anticipate any improvement.
Yes, but I'd disagree slightly with the first bit. Turnout dropped significantly in 2001 and Labour had already started to have bits of its WWC base start to peel away by then. At that stage, largely by simply not voting but they still lost places like Romford, Castle Point and Upminster.
But, such changes were only really driven by frustration at constitutional change and early signs of increasing migration. The economic situation was very benign and public spending ramping up, with good growth and low tax, so they easily held onto all key marginals.
WH24. Even though I’m relaxed given I think Harris will win the PV by over 5 pts and therefore has about a million paths in the EC I’ve done a deep dive into the states to see how that’s looking. Please ignore the following if you don’t value rigorous grinding sweat-infused ‘bottoms up’ analysis.
So the core fact is if she holds the rustbelt she wins the election. This is the backstop outcome. It’s not what she wants, there’s barely room to swing a cat, but she’d take it. Better, though, is to also hold or partially hold the sunbelt. Doing that creates some space. Eg if she loses GA but holds NV/AZ she can afford to lose MI or WI, although not both, so long as she doesn’t drop PA. If she holds just one of AZ/NV it’s still ok but it’s squeaky bum time. Holding AZ means she can afford to lose a rustbelt state so long as that state is WI. However if she holds only NV she’s back to having to cling like grim death to the whole of the rustbelt.
NV adds no value then? It does because what if she flips NC? This is more likely than her holding GA per the current betting. She’s 2.5 for NC and 2.8 for GA. Point is, if she flips NC, having won NV but lost GA/AZ, she can upend conventional wisdom by winning without PA. If she hadn’t got NV, even having flipped NC she would still require PA. That’s NV making its presence felt in no uncertain terms. A mere 6 votes but it could decide everything. Finally, a long shot that’s within the Overton window, if she wins NC and also FL she can lose all of Biden’s swing states, every last one of them, rustbelt and sunbelt, and still squeeze home by 272/266. There’ll be ructions down at Mar-a-Lago if that happens.
I think Trump will win AZ and MI. Given that - if Harris wins PA she still likely wins overall - correct?
Yes but only if she holds GA. If Trump flips those 2 plus GA he wins unless he drops something elsewhere.
Comments
NEW THREAD
Obama won Pennsylvania by 10% more than N Carolina in 2008. In 2020 Pennsylvania Dem margin only 2.5% better than N Carolina. So IF that trend continued it wouldn't be that surprising if Pennsylvania has a slightly worse Dem margin than North Carolina this year.
But in any case, they both look very close on current polling.
But, such changes were only really driven by frustration at constitutional change and early signs of increasing migration. The economic situation was very benign and public spending ramping up, with good growth and low tax, so they easily held onto all key marginals.