I have never read any Terry Pratchett. Mind you, I don’t read much fiction generally. What genre are they?
Jonathan Swift meets JRR Tolkien, with characters by PG Wodehouse and dialogue by Douglas Adams. Joseph Heller that's actually funny. Aaron Sorkin with elves. More quotable than Shakespeare. I may not have enough superlatives.
The books are set on the Discworld and are populated by elves, vampires, dwarfs, werewolves and humans, but they all talk like real people. Each book revolves around the problems of a small group or single individual as something bad happens and they work around a solution. Along the way the dialogue is peppery, the plots skip along, and the characters are well drawn. Most characters appear in more than one book and the society evolves from mediaeval times via Renaissance Italy to the early industrial revolution. By the end it is roundly stocked and the characters write themselves.
Forty one books. At one every six months, that's the next 20 years sorted out. You can thank me later...
OK. Is there a starter book? Because much as I appreciate all the responses elves and vampires who talk like PG Wodehouse are not instantly appealing.
My all-time favourite modern - and recently deceased - writer is William Trevor, closely followed by John McGahern. Their worlds seem very different to Discworld.
Also who or what are/is Radiohead? This is said in a polite humble and uber-respectful, indeed grovelling, way as it seems to be important to the very wise and brilliant @rcs1000 (Is that enough grovelling? .)
Start with "Mort"
Death comes to us all, when he came to Mort he offered him a job ...
I have never read any Terry Pratchett. Mind you, I don’t read much fiction generally. What genre are they?
Jonathan Swift meets JRR Tolkien, with characters by PG Wodehouse and dialogue by Douglas Adams. Joseph Heller that's actually funny. Aaron Sorkin with elves. More quotable than Shakespeare. I may not have enough superlatives.
The books are set on the Discworld and are populated by elves, vampires, dwarfs, werewolves and humans, but they all talk like real people. Each book revolves around the problems of a small group or single individual as something bad happens and they work around a solution. Along the way the dialogue is peppery, the plots skip along, and the characters are well drawn. Most characters appear in more than one book and the society evolves from mediaeval times via Renaissance Italy to the early industrial revolution. By the end it is roundly stocked and the characters write themselves.
Forty one books. At one every six months, that's the next 20 years sorted out. You can thank me later...
OK. Is there a starter book? Because much as I appreciate all the responses elves and vampires who talk like PG Wodehouse are not instantly appealing.
Whilst the series is, for the most part, chronological, there tend to be sequences of books with specific main characters in specific locations, my favourite being the Watch sequence, which started with Guards Guards, though personally I'd start with the second Men-at-Arms. They were followed by Feet of Clay, Jingo, The Fifth Element,Night Watch and Thud, and are among the best in the series to see the setting grow and develop from mere parody into something more. Feet of Clay was the first Discworld book I ever read.
However, I genuinely think one of the best ones to start with to see if you like the style (other than that it has chapters, which most of the series do not) is Going Postal, as it starts off a new sequence, with a main character almost designed to not accidentally drag in main characters from other books and have it become about them. It's about a con man being tasked to revitalise a postal service and shady banking and business dealings!
I think more politicians should try to emulate Lord Vetinari, the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork - if you are going to be mildly nefarious, at least be competent about it.
I have never read any Terry Pratchett. Mind you, I don’t read much fiction generally. What genre are they?
Jonathan Swift meets JRR Tolkien, with characters by PG Wodehouse and dialogue by Douglas Adams. Joseph Heller that's actually funny. Aaron Sorkin with elves. More quotable than Shakespeare. I may not have enough superlatives.
The books are set on the Discworld and are populated by elves, vampires, dwarfs, werewolves and humans, but they all talk like real people. Each book revolves around the problems of a small group or single individual as something bad happens and they work around a solution. Along the way the dialogue is peppery, the plots skip along, and the characters are well drawn. Most characters appear in more than one book and the society evolves from mediaeval times via Renaissance Italy to the early industrial revolution. By the end it is roundly stocked and the characters write themselves.
Forty one books. At one every six months, that's the next 20 years sorted out. You can thank me later...
OK. Is there a starter book? Because much as I appreciate all the responses elves and vampires who talk like PG Wodehouse are not instantly appealing.
Whilst the series is, for the most part, chronological, there tend to be sequences of books with specific main characters in specific locations, my favourite being the Watch sequence, which started with Guards Guards, though personally I'd start with the second Men-at-Arms. They were followed by Feet of Clay, Jingo, The Fifth Element,Night Watch and Thud, and are among the best in the series to see the setting grow and develop from mere parody into something more. Feet of Clay was the first Discworld book I ever read.
However, I genuinely think one of the best ones to start with to see if you like the style (other than that it has chapters, which most of the series do not) is Going Postal, as it starts off a new sequence, with a main character almost designed to not accidentally drag in main characters from other books and have it become about them. It's about a con man being tasked to revitalise a postal service and shady banking and business dealings!
I have never read any Terry Pratchett. Mind you, I don’t read much fiction generally. What genre are they?
Jonathan Swift meets JRR Tolkien, with characters by PG Wodehouse and dialogue by Douglas Adams. Joseph Heller that's actually funny. Aaron Sorkin with elves. More quotable than Shakespeare. I may not have enough superlatives.
The books are set on the Discworld and are populated by elves, vampires, dwarfs, werewolves and humans, but they all talk like real people. Each book revolves around the problems of a small group or single individual as something bad happens and they work around a solution. Along the way the dialogue is peppery, the plots skip along, and the characters are well drawn. Most characters appear in more than one book and the society evolves from mediaeval times via Renaissance Italy to the early industrial revolution. By the end it is roundly stocked and the characters write themselves.
Forty one books. At one every six months, that's the next 20 years sorted out. You can thank me later...
OK. Is there a starter book? Because much as I appreciate all the responses elves and vampires who talk like PG Wodehouse are not instantly appealing.
Whilst the series is, for the most part, chronological, there tend to be sequences of books with specific main characters in specific locations, my favourite being the Watch sequence, which started with Guards Guards, though personally I'd start with the second Men-at-Arms. They were followed by Feet of Clay, Jingo, The Fifth Element,Night Watch and Thud, and are among the best in the series to see the setting grow and develop from mere parody into something more. Feet of Clay was the first Discworld book I ever read.
However, I genuinely think one of the best ones to start with to see if you like the style (other than that it has chapters, which most of the series do not) is Going Postal, as it starts off a new sequence, with a main character almost designed to not accidentally drag in main characters from other books and have it become about them. It's about a con man being tasked to revitalise a postal service and shady banking and business dealings!
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point nationally.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
45-49% is baked in for the parties of the right. The division of that vote is critical to the outcome of the election, but stories that excite left wing voters won't make any difference to that overall right wing vote share.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
It gets interesting when you look at, say, Ross Skye and Lochaber as well. Exactly the same thing happens. 2005-2015, a perfectly linear relationship, add in 2017 and then you have a cliff edge.
So from the daily borisgraph, it seems the tories are going to defending capitalism. Somebody has to, but i do wonder what the public will make of it, especially from a posho....hardly thatcher doing it.
Anyone who gives a fuck about what Stormzy thinks isn't going to consider voting Tory anyway. Though the lesson should be noted. Put JRM and the rest of his idiot crew in a box.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
It gets interesting when you look at, say, Ross Skye and Lochaber as well. Exactly the same thing happens. 2005-2015, a perfectly linear relationship, add in 2017 and then you have a cliff edge.
Might be interesting (depends how much of a nerd you are) to plot the delta between your model and the 2017 data point vs. the share of another party.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
It gets interesting when you look at, say, Ross Skye and Lochaber as well. Exactly the same thing happens. 2005-2015, a perfectly linear relationship, add in 2017 and then you have a cliff edge.
There was a wholesale Scottish Lib Dem -> Tory movement going on under the radar in 2017 GE in the Highlands.
So from the daily borisgraph, it seems the tories are going to defending capitalism. Somebody has to, but i do wonder what the public will make of it, especially from a posho....hardly thatcher doing it.
I don’t think they have a choice vs. full fat socialism. It may or may not work, but sometimes you have to attack the other side’s basic argument or you surrender the case.
First I've heard of Claire Wright, very impressive to get 21k votes as an independent in a General Election where the smaller parties were squeezed. I'd assume the leave vote will coalesce around the Tories in East Devon though.
This is the biggest.concern for me...Labour of the past wasnt stuffed with antisemites and extremists, now even when jezza has gone it is likely that the labour benches will be stuffed with many far more extreme than him.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
It gets interesting when you look at, say, Ross Skye and Lochaber as well. Exactly the same thing happens. 2005-2015, a perfectly linear relationship, add in 2017 and then you have a cliff edge.
Might be interesting (depends how much of a nerd you are) to plot the delta between your model and the 2017 data point vs. the share of another party.
I am a massive fucking nerd.
My current approach is to try and identify when tactical voting kicks in and if that can be abstractly modelled. You can clearly split the Scottish Lib Dem seats into ones where they were the recipients of tactical votes and one where they were the donators of tactical votes - but the super interesting things is that it is not consistent between 2015 and 2017. So in Gordon the Lib Dems received the tactical votes in 2015 but then gave them in 2017. It explains the big 2017 down ticks in constituencies that they "did well" in in 2015.
What I haven't done yet is look out how the LD vote did in not strong LD seats, ones were they have always been distance 3rd or 4th.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
It gets interesting when you look at, say, Ross Skye and Lochaber as well. Exactly the same thing happens. 2005-2015, a perfectly linear relationship, add in 2017 and then you have a cliff edge.
Come on Alistair - "a perfectly linear relationship". With three data-points!
Anyone who gives a fuck about what Stormzy thinks isn't going to consider voting Tory anyway. Though the lesson should be noted. Put JRM and the rest of his idiot crew in a box.
No, but this kind of thing might get the youth out to vote. I say 'might'.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
It gets interesting when you look at, say, Ross Skye and Lochaber as well. Exactly the same thing happens. 2005-2015, a perfectly linear relationship, add in 2017 and then you have a cliff edge.
There was a wholesale Scottish Lib Dem -> Tory movement going on under the radar in 2017 GE in the Highlands.
Yes, I was banging on about this relentlessly after the eelction whilst people were trying to talk about SNP-to-Con switchers as if it was a thing.
Anyone who gives a fuck about what Stormzy thinks isn't going to consider voting Tory anyway. Though the lesson should be noted. Put JRM and the rest of his idiot crew in a box.
I've no idea who Stormzy is - I presume that the Metro rates his views?
Anyone who gives a fuck about what Stormzy thinks isn't going to consider voting Tory anyway. Though the lesson should be noted. Put JRM and the rest of his idiot crew in a box.
No, but this kind of thing might get the youth out to vote. I say 'might'.
Bollox to that. They may be young but their not idiots.
The difficulty of modelling the Lib Dem Vote in Scotland
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish National Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point.
Oh, fuck
Can you use something like PCA to model it (with the other parties too)?
It gets interesting when you look at, say, Ross Skye and Lochaber as well. Exactly the same thing happens. 2005-2015, a perfectly linear relationship, add in 2017 and then you have a cliff edge.
Come on Alistair - "a perfectly linear relationship". With three data-points!
I'll tell you something that doesn't have a perfectly linear relationship with 3 data points, the SNP vote 2005-2015 in any constituency.
"Boris Johnson is on track to win Labour bastions such as Bolsover and Tony Blair's former Sedgefield seat at the election, shock poll analysis shows
Findings come from a seat-by-seat sample of 46,000 Britons for Best for Britain Tories would pick up a swathe of currently Labour-voting seats in the North But they risk losing affluent Remain seats like Cheltenham to the Lib Dems"
"Boris Johnson is on track to win Labour bastions such as Bolsover and Tony Blair's former Sedgefield seat at the election, shock poll analysis shows
Findings come from a seat-by-seat sample of 46,000 Britons for Best for Britain Tories would pick up a swathe of currently Labour-voting seats in the North But they risk losing affluent Remain seats like Cheltenham to the Lib Dems"
If the tories are relying on this to win a majority, they are stuffed...it aint going to happen. Remember last time with all those flat cap working mens club types saying jezza fucking commie, will vote tory for the first time ever, yadda yadda and then....they didn't.
Curious to see Boris “Fuck Business” Johnson losing it in the telegraph.
Calling Corbyn a Stalinist is not "losing it". Arguably he is quite a lot worse....
Er, Corbyn worse than Stalin?!
Stalin wasnt an idiot.
Corbyn with nukes anyone? Except he wont use them on anyone except our allies....
I deeply dislike Corbyn (partly because of things people praise him on, like supposedly not changing his views over many decades) and do not understand what about him in particular people get so adoring about, but even though he takes advice from people who said very stupid things about Stalin, he is definitely never ever going to be as bad as Stalin, idiot or no.
"Boris Johnson is on track to win Labour bastions such as Bolsover and Tony Blair's former Sedgefield seat at the election, shock poll analysis shows
Findings come from a seat-by-seat sample of 46,000 Britons for Best for Britain Tories would pick up a swathe of currently Labour-voting seats in the North But they risk losing affluent Remain seats like Cheltenham to the Lib Dems"
If the tories are relying on this to win a majority, they are stuffed...it aint going to happen. Remember last time with all those flat cap working mens club types saying jezza fucking commie, will vote tory for the first time ever, yadda yadda and then....they didn't.
I do get the impression they might make better inroads into those areas than they did last time, as part of increasing trends which last time were not enough to take those seats. But on the same basis I think it's right that they will lose seats to the opposite trend which they just held on to last time. And I think the former may be overestimated, so while he'll do better than May in those areas, it won't make up for doing worse in others.
"Boris Johnson is on track to win Labour bastions such as Bolsover and Tony Blair's former Sedgefield seat at the election, shock poll analysis shows
Findings come from a seat-by-seat sample of 46,000 Britons for Best for Britain Tories would pick up a swathe of currently Labour-voting seats in the North But they risk losing affluent Remain seats like Cheltenham to the Lib Dems"
If the tories are relying on this to win a majority, they are stuffed...it aint going to happen. Remember last time with all those flat cap working mens club types saying jezza fucking commie, will vote tory for the first time ever, yadda yadda and then....they didn't.
I don't think they're relying on them but it would be adding to an already huge majority. I think Sedgefield is a seat too far, it last went blue in 1931
Anyone who gives a fuck about what Stormzy thinks isn't going to consider voting Tory anyway. Though the lesson should be noted. Put JRM and the rest of his idiot crew in a box.
No, but this kind of thing might get the youth out to vote. I say 'might'.
Bollox to that. They may be young but their not idiots.
The Tories might have had a "poor day" but noones mind is going to be changed by today.
Drip, drip, drip...
Quite. Taken day by day people will be able to argue that no one's mind will be made up by event X on day Y, and so therefore we must conclude no one's mind gets changed at all?
Momentum and general impressions are hard to note, and hard to quanify their effect, but last time Labour were clearly on a roll and the Tories were not. If that continues, the Tories will be in trouble once again. We'll see how things stand in a couple of weeks I think.
Tories telling Nick Watt that they have had a "truly dreadful day".
Breakfast TV showed Starmer admitting Labour had no credible policy on Brexit....
Why then did the Tories feel the need to put out a fake video of the exchange with Starmer ?
It wasnt really a fake now was it, though? Starmer hesitated several times in his answers and Labour's policy on Brexit is, indeed, literally, incredible. No more than the truth....
Tories telling Nick Watt that they have had a "truly dreadful day".
Well, they have.
They need less of these in the coming weeks. The Tory battleship is looking a bit leaky this evening.
I don't think they have had anything but crap days since the campaign started.
The public has already made up their mind about Corbyn.
In 2017 he gained voters he never had, now he has to gain voters he has previously lost. Rarely do voters leave and then return to a PM. His work is cut out.
"Boris Johnson is on track to win Labour bastions such as Bolsover and Tony Blair's former Sedgefield seat at the election, shock poll analysis shows
Findings come from a seat-by-seat sample of 46,000 Britons for Best for Britain Tories would pick up a swathe of currently Labour-voting seats in the North But they risk losing affluent Remain seats like Cheltenham to the Lib Dems"
If the tories are relying on this to win a majority, they are stuffed...it aint going to happen. Remember last time with all those flat cap working mens club types saying jezza fucking commie, will vote tory for the first time ever, yadda yadda and then....they didn't.
I don't think they're relying on them but it would be adding to an already huge majority. I think Sedgefield is a seat too far, it last went blue in 1931
"Boris Johnson is on track to win Labour bastions such as Bolsover and Tony Blair's former Sedgefield seat at the election, shock poll analysis shows
Findings come from a seat-by-seat sample of 46,000 Britons for Best for Britain Tories would pick up a swathe of currently Labour-voting seats in the North But they risk losing affluent Remain seats like Cheltenham to the Lib Dems"
If the tories are relying on this to win a majority, they are stuffed...it aint going to happen. Remember last time with all those flat cap working mens club types saying jezza fucking commie, will vote tory for the first time ever, yadda yadda and then....they didn't.
Labour's vote has been in decline for a long, long, time, in urban areas outside of the big cities, in the North and Midlands. I expect that Ashfield and Bishop Auckland will fall.
Anyone who gives a fuck about what Stormzy thinks isn't going to consider voting Tory anyway. Though the lesson should be noted. Put JRM and the rest of his idiot crew in a box.
No, but this kind of thing might get the youth out to vote. I say 'might'.
Bollox to that. They may be young but their not idiots.
Tories telling Nick Watt that they have had a "truly dreadful day".
Breakfast TV showed Starmer admitting Labour had no credible policy on Brexit....
Why then did the Tories feel the need to put out a fake video of the exchange with Starmer ?
i guess the cynic might say only the last few seconds are fake and the rest is exactly as shown so the faking little bit might spark more attention on social media to a GMB interview showing Reid higlighting the difficulty for Labour with their Brexit 'position' than might otherwise be achieved?
5 weeks of hysteria over every word uttered to go! However I think its justified to be raisin concerns about the currant state of the Labour party re this Sultana woman
Tories telling Nick Watt that they have had a "truly dreadful day".
Breakfast TV showed Starmer admitting Labour had no credible policy on Brexit....
Why then did the Tories feel the need to put out a fake video of the exchange with Starmer ?
i guess the cynic might say only the last few seconds are fake and the rest is exactly as shown so the faking little bit might spark more attention on social media to a GMB interview showing Reid higlighting the difficulty for Labour with their Brexit 'position' than might otherwise be achieved?
So can’t even manage an attack on a barely defensible policy without lying ?
Tories telling Nick Watt that they have had a "truly dreadful day".
Well, they have.
They need less of these in the coming weeks. The Tory battleship is looking a bit leaky this evening.
I don't think they have had anything but crap days since the campaign started.
The public has already made up their mind about Corbyn.
In 2017 he gained voters he never had, now he has to gain voters he has previously lost. Rarely do voters leave and then return to a PM. His work is cut out.
Corbyn is no longer a blank canvass though, is he. The public has made up its mind.
Tories telling Nick Watt that they have had a "truly dreadful day".
Breakfast TV showed Starmer admitting Labour had no credible policy on Brexit....
Why then did the Tories feel the need to put out a fake video of the exchange with Starmer ?
It wasnt really a fake now was it, though? Starmer hesitated several times in his answers and Labour's policy on Brexit is, indeed, literally, incredible. No more than the truth....
You know we can see the actual interview footage right?
Tory MPs can afford to make a few gaffes, Labour will and are doing the same. What the Tories need to avoid is more than 1 or 2 Boris gaffes. People are voting for a PM and May made enough gaffes to make people feel very differently about her at the end of the campaign.
Whether Boris can stay disciplined remains to be seen.
Tories telling Nick Watt that they have had a "truly dreadful day".
Well, they have.
They need less of these in the coming weeks. The Tory battleship is looking a bit leaky this evening.
When was the last time the Tories actually had a good GE electioneering day? Probably in 2015 when Ed Miliband said on national TV that he didn't think Labour 97-2010 had overspent.
One wonders if the Tories have simply lost the ability to win elections. 2017 was a disaster, this one is already starting to look ominous.
I know the Tories aren't launching until tomorrow but the election's been fact since last Thursday - they look caught on the hop.
Comments
Start with "Mort"
Death comes to us all, when he came to Mort he offered him a job ...
However, I genuinely think one of the best ones to start with to see if you like the style (other than that it has chapters, which most of the series do not) is Going Postal, as it starts off a new sequence, with a main character almost designed to not accidentally drag in main characters from other books and have it become about them. It's about a con man being tasked to revitalise a postal service and shady banking and business dealings!
I think more politicians should try to emulate Lord Vetinari, the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork - if you are going to be mildly nefarious, at least be competent about it. Restrained, it is not. I know people were wondering when the Tories would start campaigning already, but you don't need to go from 0 to 100 in a day.
He either wins or brexit dies
Maybe they are getting the crap out of the way before the Queen actually blows the start whistle tomorrow.
Words fail me.
As indeed they do her.
I didn't think Tescos sells suits....
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1191829046503587840
Here, my friends is the Lib Dem Vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine plotted against the Scottish Lib Dem vote for 2005, 2010 and 2015
THat's piss easy to model right? That's the world's linearist relationship. I think it is pretty clear where you would plot the Lib Dems in West Aberdeenshire and Kinkardine with them polling 13% Nationally.
Okay, lets add in 2017 - the Lib Dem vote only fell by 0.7 percentage point nationally.
Oh, fuck
Frankly, who cares what Stormzy, self-confessed foul-mouthed Corbynite thinks? Certainly not the people Labour need to win a GE.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1191839130105319431
According to the latest yougov 69% of Tory voters won't change their minds compared to 61% of Labour voters
My current approach is to try and identify when tactical voting kicks in and if that can be abstractly modelled. You can clearly split the Scottish Lib Dem seats into ones where they were the recipients of tactical votes and one where they were the donators of tactical votes - but the super interesting things is that it is not consistent between 2015 and 2017. So in Gordon the Lib Dems received the tactical votes in 2015 but then gave them in 2017. It explains the big 2017 down ticks in constituencies that they "did well" in in 2015.
What I haven't done yet is look out how the LD vote did in not strong LD seats, ones were they have always been distance 3rd or 4th.
Corbyn with nukes anyone? Except he wont use them on anyone except our allies....
This is not looking very clever.
They need less of these in the coming weeks. The Tory battleship is looking a bit leaky this evening.
Breakfast TV showed Starmer admitting Labour had no credible policy on Brexit.
Labour going "nah nah nah , not listening" on Brexit is what will be remembered longer term from today.
How old are you?
Findings come from a seat-by-seat sample of 46,000 Britons for Best for Britain
Tories would pick up a swathe of currently Labour-voting seats in the North
But they risk losing affluent Remain seats like Cheltenham to the Lib Dems"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7652557/Boris-Johnson-track-win-Labour-bastions-like-Tony-Blairs-old-Sedgefield-seat-election.html
Oops sorry. hes is just another scandi social democrat isnt he?!
A lot of excitable lefties here this evening. No voter is going to say "Rees Moggs an idiot so im going to vote Corbyn now".
But keep on dreaming..
One Tory gain I shall be loudly cheering.
Momentum and general impressions are hard to note, and hard to quanify their effect, but last time Labour were clearly on a roll and the Tories were not. If that continues, the Tories will be in trouble once again. We'll see how things stand in a couple of weeks I think.
Not talking about it wont make it go away, you know. You're not 10.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-revised-testimony-sondland-ties-trump-to-quid-pro-quo/2019/11/05/3059b3b8-ffec-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html
Outside of an election period we'd all be raisin to do so.
However I think its justified to be raisin concerns about the currant state of the Labour party re this Sultana woman
https://mobile.twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1191839356362919936
*gets coat*
Voters arent going back to him in any numbers,
The Tory Video is fake.
Whether Boris can stay disciplined remains to be seen.
One wonders if the Tories have simply lost the ability to win elections. 2017 was a disaster, this one is already starting to look ominous.
I know the Tories aren't launching until tomorrow but the election's been fact since last Thursday - they look caught on the hop.
He then goes to the Midlands for his big campaign launch at 7.30pm
I think he may take the agenda over for tomorrow
https://twitter.com/OpinionBee/status/1191850972605235206