The Mash Report is another show a bit like Victoria Derbyshire show or in the US Brooklyn Nine Nine, very popular among a particular niche group, very popular with clips on twitter, but actual viewership very low.
So its cancelling is getting loads of coverage, way beyond its actual popularity. It ain't no GBB.
More upsetting for the oldies (the ones who watch the BBC), Egghead is going to Ch5.
Brooklyn Nine Nine is one of the best comedies on TV now.
The Mash Report is not.
That may be the case, but it got very poor ratings, 2-3 million views....although it was claimed there was good viewership from reruns on streaming services, which some who love the show said that means it is actually quietly much more popular....or it could be that people who really like it, watch it again and again.
However, to put in context, Young Sheldon, the piss poor spin-off of Big Bang Theory, gets 9 million on live viewing and loads of rerun viewership.
The reason its been canned twice is not enough people watch it.
Sure, but it got to 5 seasons before being cancelled the first time, and then renewed a further 3 times. Unpopular shows, even if critically acclaimed, don't make it to 8 seasons, and most shows are not TBBT or a spin off of it.
So it was never the most popular show on television, but enough watched it to make it profitable to maintain for 8 years.
And really, it's a very rare show to make it beyond 4-5 and still be any good.
I think to be fair the first 2-3 seasons got pretty good ratings, but then it went south. Fox held it on for another 2 seasons, canned it, NBC brought it back because they believed it was actually very popular, and it wasn't, so they canned it.
I am not saying it was rubbish or a failure, just that the reaction to it being cancelled, major front page stories on the BBC, Guardian, etc for a show with a small audience in the US was totally out of proportion. Major US network can shows with 2 million audience every few months.
But it was because it was very popular with those that right these pieces and their social circle. Its a cult classic to them, but the wider British public, I doubt very many people have watched it.
Mash Report I think is probably the same. Its getting front page reporting, twitter melting down, but it got less than a million viewers, 200k less than shows normally in that slot.
The Mash Report is another show a bit like Victoria Derbyshire show or in the US Brooklyn Nine Nine, very popular among a particular niche group, very popular with clips on twitter, but actual viewership very low.
So its cancelling is getting loads of coverage, way beyond its actual popularity. It ain't no GBB.
More upsetting for the oldies (the ones who watch the BBC), Egghead is going to Ch5.
Brooklyn Nine Nine is one of the best comedies on TV now.
The Mash Report is not.
That may be the case, but it got very poor ratings, 2-3 million views....although it was claimed there was good viewership from reruns, which some who love the show said that means it is actually quietly much more popular.
However, to put in context, Young Sheldon, the piss poor spin-off of Big Bang Theory, gets 9 million on live viewing and loads of rerun viewership.
The reason its been canned twice is people don't watch it enough.
Nine Nine is definitely the better of the two shows. I know it changed networks a few years back, no idea how that affects its ratings.
Since Big Bang got cancelled Nine Nine would probably be my favourite regular comedy series.
The network change initially saw a bit of a boost, but then it fell back down to the same sort of level, hence why its gone again.
Oh I didn't realise it was gone again. That's a shame, but its been on a while. I'm behind on the series waiting for the next season to come to Netflix.
Surprised you missed that news. It was a major story on the BBC and Guardian, moaning the passing of what was clearly one of their favourite shows and then discussing (in their opinion) all the crucial diversity elements to it that aren't widespread enough in other shows.
I don't spend much time on the Guardian or reading the entertainment section of the BBC either.
Its a shame if its gone but to be honest its had a good run. Wouldn't have been bad if they'd wrapped it up with the wedding.
Yes its diverse but its not hit you over the head diverse, at least most of the time, its just well written and funny.
The Mash Report is another show a bit like Victoria Derbyshire show or in the US Brooklyn Nine Nine, very popular among a particular niche group, very popular with clips on twitter, but actual viewership very low.
So its cancelling is getting loads of coverage, way beyond its actual popularity. It ain't no GBB.
More upsetting for the oldies (the ones who watch the BBC), Egghead is going to Ch5.
Brooklyn Nine Nine is one of the best comedies on TV now.
The Mash Report is not.
That may be the case, but it got very poor ratings, 2-3 million views....although it was claimed there was good viewership from reruns, which some who love the show said that means it is actually quietly much more popular.
However, to put in context, Young Sheldon, the piss poor spin-off of Big Bang Theory, gets 9 million on live viewing and loads of rerun viewership.
The reason its been canned twice is people don't watch it enough.
Nine Nine is definitely the better of the two shows. I know it changed networks a few years back, no idea how that affects its ratings.
Since Big Bang got cancelled Nine Nine would probably be my favourite regular comedy series.
The network change initially saw a bit of a boost, but then it fell back down to the same sort of level, hence why its gone again.
Oh I didn't realise it was gone again. That's a shame, but its been on a while. I'm behind on the series waiting for the next season to come to Netflix.
Surprised you missed that news. It was a major story on the BBC and Guardian, moaning the passing of what was clearly one of their favourite shows and then discussing (in their opinion) all the crucial diversity elements to it that aren't widespread enough in other shows.
I don't spend much time on the Guardian or reading the entertainment section of the BBC either.
Its a shame if its gone but to be honest its had a good run. Wouldn't have been bad if they'd wrapped it up with the wedding.
Yes its diverse but its not hit you over the head diverse, at least most of the time, its just well written and funny.
Since you spoke about viral scenes, this one has to be one of the best (needs sound on). www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlBYdiXdUa8
That was my point, it wasn't on the Entertainment section, it was front page. One of THE major stories of the day. Just as the Mash Report getting canned today is. Anybody would think it was a rating beast / cash cow like Top Gear, rather than a show outside of twitterati very few people watch or retweet the clips.
Anyway, it isn't very important, and I sound like I am getting obsessed with it. Just thought it was interesting to see the (over)reaction.
I see the twitterati have reacted to the Mash Report (a show will piss poor ratings) getting cancelled with the tiresome and as unfunny as the Mash Report, that means Jim Davidson is coming back, followed by reruns of Bernard Manning, Alf Garnett.
Well the BBC are airing Fawlty Towers on BBC1 on Monday at 8.30pm.
Lord know how they will show that unedited, I think every scene with the Major will have to be deleted.
Not sure how they will be able to get away with showing 'Flowery Twats' in one of the intros.
They're on Britbox unedited but with a warning. I think it's the best way.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
On conversion therapy. Tbf to the government, which is not my instinct, they always intended to do this. Unfortunately, this is an area which is hugely legislatively complex. No country has made it illegal where they don't have therapy as a profession. We don't. Define conversion. Define therapy. Then who judges? There is no professional body as for teachers, doctors and lawyers. Literally anyone can offer therapy. We could have @Casino_Royale offering anger management or @Leon offering Zen like equanimity. And that is before the religious angle.
I see the twitterati have reacted to the Mash Report (a show will piss poor ratings) getting cancelled with the tiresome and as unfunny as the Mash Report, that means Jim Davidson is coming back, followed by reruns of Bernard Manning, Alf Garnett.
On conversion therapy. Tbf to the government, which is not my instinct, they always intended to do this. Unfortunately, this is an area which is hugely legislatively complex. No country has made it illegal where they don't have therapy as a profession. We don't. Define conversion. Define therapy. Then who judges? There is no professional body as for teachers, doctors and lawyers. Literally anyone can offer therapy. We could have @Casino_Royale offering anger management or @Leon offering Zen like equanimity. And that is before the religious angle.
There is obv a huge back story here of which I am unaware, but this is fraught with difficulty. What about adults who positively want to be subjected to conversion therapy? Or to explore with a therapist the issue of whether they are convertible?
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
That's correct - EU paid in advance for doses. In the case of AZ, if you look at the leaked prices it matches exactly.
The only exception is I think Biontec (sp?) and maybe Moderna, and that was Germany before the Ursula and Mutti made them stop.
The Mash Report is another show a bit like Victoria Derbyshire show or in the US Brooklyn Nine Nine, very popular among a particular niche group, very popular with clips on twitter, but actual viewership very low.
So its cancelling is getting loads of coverage, way beyond its actual popularity. It ain't no GBB.
More upsetting for the oldies (the ones who watch the BBC), Egghead is going to Ch5.
Brooklyn Nine Nine is one of the best comedies on TV now.
The Mash Report is not.
That may be the case, but it got very poor ratings, 2-3 million views....although it was claimed there was good viewership from reruns, which some who love the show said that means it is actually quietly much more popular.
However, to put in context, Young Sheldon, the piss poor spin-off of Big Bang Theory, gets 9 million on live viewing and loads of rerun viewership.
The reason its been canned twice is people don't watch it enough.
Nine Nine is definitely the better of the two shows. I know it changed networks a few years back, no idea how that affects its ratings.
Since Big Bang got cancelled Nine Nine would probably be my favourite regular comedy series.
The network change initially saw a bit of a boost, but then it fell back down to the same sort of level, hence why its gone again.
Oh I didn't realise it was gone again. That's a shame, but its been on a while. I'm behind on the series waiting for the next season to come to Netflix.
Surprised you missed that news. It was a major story on the BBC and Guardian, moaning the passing of what was clearly one of their favourite shows and then discussing (in their opinion) all the crucial diversity elements to it that aren't widespread enough in other shows.
I don't spend much time on the Guardian or reading the entertainment section of the BBC either.
Its a shame if its gone but to be honest its had a good run. Wouldn't have been bad if they'd wrapped it up with the wedding.
Yes its diverse but its not hit you over the head diverse, at least most of the time, its just well written and funny.
Since you spoke about viral scenes, this one has to be one of the best (needs sound on). www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlBYdiXdUa8
That was my point, it wasn't on the Entertainment section, it was front page. One of THE major stories of the day. Just as the Mash Report getting canned today is. Anybody would think it was a rating beast / cash cow like Top Gear, rather than a show outside of twitterati very few people watch or retweet the clips.
Anyway, it isn't very important, and I sound like I am getting obsessed with it. Just thought it was interesting to see the (over)reaction.
I think it is a fair point that the cancellation of even what is a long running US sitcom would not really be so newsworthy without another reason. TV shows are cancelled every year. I don't recall much coverage about Supernatural ending, and that ran for 15 years and had equivalent ratings.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
At least a third of Americans think EVERYONE is racist, especially Americans, so this is hardly a huge surprise
If the claims of racism against Baby Archie are true, why didn't Harry or Meghan go all the way and actually NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than SMEAR the entire family (Liz and Phil aside)?
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
Three out of the six vaccines that are authorised or are pending authorisation by western regulators were developed in EU located labs. I don't think that's an accident. All those labs received EU Horizon funding over years, as did Oxford University prior to the UK leaving the EU. Which is great and clearly a benefit to mankind.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
Why do you want Harry to lie?
As for your last point, they should Prince Philip front and centre for that.
My expectations are that we'll have a big spike from the school-kids. I simply don't believe that they're not a major vector of infection. Of course it may not be them but more their parents clustering to have a natter.
I passed an ice-cream van on tuesday - 20 kids clustered around it and 10 parents. Insane.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
You have misread this data which refers to 'swing required' rather than 'majority'.Thus ' Labour's lead in Weaver Vale was circa 1.1% - ie the Tories would need a swing of 0.55% to win there. Labour's lead in Bradford South is almost 6% - not 2.95%.
At least a third of Americans think EVERYONE is racist, especially Americans, so this is hardly a huge surprise
If the claims of racism against Baby Archie are true, why didn't Harry or Meghan go all the way and actually NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than SMEAR the entire family (Liz and Phil aside)?
At least a third of Americans think EVERYONE is racist, especially Americans, so this is hardly a huge surprise
If the claims of racism against Baby Archie are true, why didn't Harry or Meghan go all the way and actually NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than SMEAR the entire family (Liz and Phil aside)?
Because if they name the person, then that person comes out with their side of the story and can defend themselves.
Far better from their standpoint just to have it hanging it out there and wallow in their victimhood with everyone praising them for their "courage" in dealing with racism.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
Why do you want Harry to lie?
As for your last point, they should Prince Philip front and centre for that.
On conversion therapy. Tbf to the government, which is not my instinct, they always intended to do this. Unfortunately, this is an area which is hugely legislatively complex. No country has made it illegal where they don't have therapy as a profession. We don't. Define conversion. Define therapy. Then who judges? There is no professional body as for teachers, doctors and lawyers. Literally anyone can offer therapy. We could have @Casino_Royale offering anger management or @Leon offering Zen like equanimity. And that is before the religious angle.
There is obv a huge back story here of which I am unaware, but this is fraught with difficulty. What about adults who positively want to be subjected to conversion therapy? Or to explore with a therapist the issue of whether they are convertible?
Well indeed. And, of course, most therapists in practice today have no more than a level 4. Which has no gender or sexuality training of any kind as a requirement. And where, anyway, is the line drawn between "I am attracted to the same sex, which makes me uncomfortable/ is inconvenient/ goes against my religious beliefs, etc." Which it is the duty of the therapist to hear with unconditional positive regard, and possibly suggest strategies. And converting them? Then there isn't any body to sit in judgement of that line in this country anyways.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019. A Tory lead of 7.9% in 2021 is highly unlikely to produce a bigger Tory majority than their 11.7% lead at the end of 2019. Going back further, the Tories led by 7.6% under Major in 1992 yet only managed a majority of 21. Camerons 6% lead in 2015 saw a majority of just 12. This model is nonsense.
At least a third of Americans think EVERYONE is racist, especially Americans, so this is hardly a huge surprise
If the claims of racism against Baby Archie are true, why didn't Harry or Meghan go all the way and actually NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than SMEAR the entire family (Liz and Phil aside)?
There are lots of reasons why they might decide not to name.
1. If it was one of those in the direct line of succession then it's much worse, so they would be holding back not to say that explicitly. 2. If it was a relatively obscure member of the family then many might shrug their shoulders, so they would be maximising impact to leave it vague. 3. If they don't name then it makes it harder for the person responsible to defend themself. 4. By not naming they might have hoped to keep the focus on their experience of it, and how that made them feel.
I see the twitterati have reacted to the Mash Report (a show will piss poor ratings) getting cancelled with the tiresome and as unfunny as the Mash Report, that means Jim Davidson is coming back, followed by reruns of Bernard Manning, Alf Garnett.
Well the BBC are airing Fawlty Towers on BBC1 on Monday at 8.30pm.
Lord know how they will show that unedited, I think every scene with the Major will have to be deleted.
Not sure how they will be able to get away with showing 'Flowery Twats' in one of the intros.
They show it all with a strong audio and visual warning at the start.
People aren't half as snowflakey as Twitter would lead you to believe, and that lot will still scream like mules about it anyway.
One things - asked about favourable or non favourable opinion of the royal family, which includes Oprah?
Edit: Misread.
And who has favourable or unfavourable views of a child, really?
I think a few people here have a hugely favourable view of royal sprogs even before they're born. The bloke on the left is a regular at royal confinements I think (though not actually 'at' them thank Christ).
I always think when I see those pictures "what sort of life do you have?"
Who cares what Americans think about our royal family? They got rid of them 250 years ago. They don't care what we think of their Presidents.
Notable partisan divide though, Democrats think the royals are racist, Republicans think they are not
This steers to an obvious point and I'll make it since I don't think anybody else has. As per the "Is the BBC left wing?" question, the answers will be skewed (and unfortunately not in a measurable way) by the innate bias of the respondents. In this case, not their politics directly but by how racist they are.
People who are pretty racist themselves will almost always self-report that they are not. Sometimes with a rhetorical flourish. "Not a racist bone in their bodies" being the default there. And often they will truly believe this. Whether they do or they don't, it means that when asked whether they think something is racist, they will tend to say "no", even if to somebody who is truly not racist, or much less racist, it patently is.
This, I suggest, explains much of the Republican/Democrat split in this poll.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
At least a third of Americans think EVERYONE is racist, especially Americans, so this is hardly a huge surprise
If the claims of racism against Baby Archie are true, why didn't Harry or Meghan go all the way and actually NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than SMEAR the entire family (Liz and Phil aside)?
There are lots of reasons why they might decide not to name.
1. If it was one of those in the direct line of succession then it's much worse, so they would be holding back not to say that explicitly. 2. If it was a relatively obscure member of the family then many might shrug their shoulders, so they would be maximising impact to leave it vague. 3. If they don't name then it makes it harder for the person responsible to defend themself. 4. By not naming they might have hoped to keep the focus on their experience of it, and how that made them feel.
Do we actually care what the most racist country in the west thinks about racism?
Yes, monarchists keep on telling us that the monarchy attracts tourists, especially American ones, now they'll visit less now that they know/think the Royals are racists.
So this is another reason to abolish the monarchy, if they don't bring tourists what's the bloody point of them?
You won't be saying that when the entire Deep South can holiday in the UK again.....
I love the Deep South.
Had wonderful experiences in NOLA before Katrina.
Next year, wifey and I have an invite to spend Mardi Gras in the French Quarter mansion of Harry Shearer (Spinal Tap, various Simpson's voices) and his wife. It will need to be vicious variants of Bubonic Plague and the Andromeda Strain to stop me....
At least a third of Americans think EVERYONE is racist, especially Americans, so this is hardly a huge surprise
If the claims of racism against Baby Archie are true, why didn't Harry or Meghan go all the way and actually NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than SMEAR the entire family (Liz and Phil aside)?
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
Interesting that that wasn't brought up by Harry and Meghan, to be honest. It's not like they're worried about burning bridges at this point.
I would have mentioned it, I would have mentioned the Duke of York promised to assist the investigations into the allegations against him and yet has declined every opportunity to do so.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
I don't know - wouldn't all that trouble look more like confirming that there's an issue?
The aim should really be to shut the Sussexes up by mutual consent, or failing that, discredit them completely so that people are less and less interested each time they decide to get some more column inches by telling more tales of royal racist woe.
If it came to the latter, I'd suggest A) If the Meghan bullying allegations are true, ensuring that information enters the public domain, and the victims are rightly compensated B ) If Archiegate is overblown, this should also enter the public domain
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
Three out of the six vaccines that are authorised or are pending authorisation by western regulators were developed in EU located labs. I don't think that's an accident. All those labs received EU Horizon funding over years, as did Oxford University prior to the UK leaving the EU. Which is great and clearly a benefit to mankind.
Procurement is contractual however
The UK and US each spent 7 times more per capita on Covid vaccine R&D than the EU. The EU under invested and then tried to argue about how much it was paying for the jabs. That is indefensible.
That's quite the drop for Meghan and Harry, over the course of three years.
Which, they would put down entirely to unfavourable press coverage.
Never their own actions or behaviour.
I find it remarkable that there is an implication in your post that H and M have behaved " badly". Now moving on let's talk about Prince Andrew, and on a lower scale altogether, but nonetheless a reprehensible track record of infidelity while married, Prince Charles. Undoubtedly, men behaving badly.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
For those wondering about the March vaccine surge. Just had an email from one of my nearby councils saying the NHS will be doubling the vaccine delivery in their area this coming week.
That's quite the drop for Meghan and Harry, over the course of three years.
Which, they would put down entirely to unfavourable press coverage.
Never their own actions or behaviour.
I find it remarkable that there is an implication in your post that H and M have behaved " badly". Now moving on let's talk about Prince Andrew, and on a lower scale altogether, but nonetheless a reprehensible track record of infidelity while married, Prince Charles. Undoubtedly, men behaving badly.
They have indeed behaved not just badly but disgracefully. Your Whataboutism is pointless here. Andrew should indeed be hung out to dry for his actions but that in no way excuses the way the Sussexes have behaved.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
But in its entirety England & Wales did so.
Across GB the pro-Labour swing that year was 0.5%.
Who cares what Americans think about our royal family? They got rid of them 250 years ago. They don't care what we think of their Presidents.
Notable partisan divide though, Democrats think the royals are racist, Republicans think they are not
This steers to an obvious point and I'll make it since I don't think anybody else has. As per the "Is the BBC left wing?" question, the answers will be skewed (and unfortunately not in a measurable way) by the innate bias of the respondents. In this case, not their politics directly but by how racist they are.
People who are pretty racist themselves will almost always self-report that they are not. Sometimes with a rhetorical flourish. "Not a racist bone in their bodies" being the default there. And often they will truly believe this. Whether they do or they don't, it means that when asked whether they think something is racist, they will tend to say "no", even if to somebody who is truly not racist, or much less racist, it patently is.
This, I suggest, explains much of the Republican/Democrat split in this poll.
Funnily enough, certainly amongst the Republican commentators, Harry is getting more flak than Meghan who is seen as merely trying to ingratiate herself into the woke aristocracy. He is seen as a patsy who lets his wife trash his family.
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
What’s the point of an investigation when we already know all the answers?
Investigations like these help enrich the legal profession, so that's a good point in carrying out these investigations.
You touting for business, TSE?
(Incidentally Richard, yes, I have been absent during the day due to being back at school. Hope your family have been able to reintegrate smoothly. The process the government insist on has been a complete mess.)
I see the twitterati have reacted to the Mash Report (a show will piss poor ratings) getting cancelled with the tiresome and as unfunny as the Mash Report, that means Jim Davidson is coming back, followed by reruns of Bernard Manning, Alf Garnett.
Well the BBC are airing Fawlty Towers on BBC1 on Monday at 8.30pm.
Lord know how they will show that unedited, I think every scene with the Major will have to be deleted.
Not sure how they will be able to get away with showing 'Flowery Twats' in one of the intros.
Fawlty Towers is the best situation comedy ever made - with Blackadders 2 to 4 a close second.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
But in its entirety England & Wales did so.
Across GB the pro-Labour swing that year was 0.5%.
The GB swing that year is very misleading, that's why all decent psephologists focus on the England & Wales figures.
At least a third of Americans think EVERYONE is racist, especially Americans, so this is hardly a huge surprise
If the claims of racism against Baby Archie are true, why didn't Harry or Meghan go all the way and actually NAME the alleged Royal Racist, rather than SMEAR the entire family (Liz and Phil aside)?
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
Three out of the six vaccines that are authorised or are pending authorisation by western regulators were developed in EU located labs. I don't think that's an accident. All those labs received EU Horizon funding over years, as did Oxford University prior to the UK leaving the EU. Which is great and clearly a benefit to mankind.
Procurement is contractual however
The UK and US each spent 7 times more per capita on Covid vaccine R&D than the EU. The EU under invested and then tried to argue about how much it was paying for the jabs. That is indefensible.
The EU made mistakes with its procurement.
A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
But in its entirety England & Wales did so.
Across GB the pro-Labour swing that year was 0.5%.
Not good for Labour when that resulted in only 232 seats.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
Three out of the six vaccines that are authorised or are pending authorisation by western regulators were developed in EU located labs. I don't think that's an accident. All those labs received EU Horizon funding over years, as did Oxford University prior to the UK leaving the EU. Which is great and clearly a benefit to mankind.
Procurement is contractual however
The UK and US each spent 7 times more per capita on Covid vaccine R&D than the EU. The EU under invested and then tried to argue about how much it was paying for the jabs. That is indefensible.
The EU made mistakes with its procurement.
A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
What’s the point of an investigation when we already know all the answers?
Investigations like these help enrich the legal profession, so that's a good point in carrying out these investigations.
You touting for business, TSE?
(Incidentally Richard, yes, I have been absent during the day due to being back at school. Hope your family have been able to reintegrate smoothly. The process the government insist on has been a complete mess.)
Nope, I'm entirely focussed on updating/starting our preparations for
1) A WTO Brexit which may still happen
2) The implications for another Indyref and what happens if the Scots secede
and finally
3) NFTs and cryptocurrencies in a world of AML regulations and UWOs.
Harry and Meghan's main complaint is Meghan's treatment by the tabloids, not the alleged racism of the royal family. It has been all along. It seems to me unsurprising that the tabloids would focus almost entirely on the apparent besmirching of the good name of the royal family rather than the running sore of the tabloids' shoddy treatment of Meghan. I guess the couple's mistake was to give the tabloids the excuse to conveniently set aside the substance of the complaint against them (the tabloids) and focus on an entirely speculative story about who may or may not be a bit dodgy on race in the royal family.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
But in its entirety England & Wales did so.
Lib Dem Surge! Potential gains are Wimbledon, Winchester and Cheltenham, but Westmorland and Lonsdale gets even closer.
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
What’s the point of an investigation when we already know all the answers?
Investigations like these help enrich the legal profession, so that's a good point in carrying out these investigations.
You touting for business, TSE?
(Incidentally Richard, yes, I have been absent during the day due to being back at school. Hope your family have been able to reintegrate smoothly. The process the government insist on has been a complete mess.)
Very smoothly for us. My son hated the idea of going back but as the school have very successfully been running a full timetable remotely, on the surface at least the transition has been pretty seamless for pupils and parents. I suspect that for the staff it is a case of the swan swimming serenely whilst paddling frantically beneath the surface.
My son finds it difficult to keep up in some face to face lessons but has thrived in the remote learning environment so in some ways I am sad to see him go back to school. He also sees his friends less at school at the moment because of restrictions. It was much easier to chat with them online when everyone was at home.
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
But in its entirety England & Wales did so.
Across GB the pro-Labour swing that year was 0.5%.
The GB swing that year is very misleading, that's why all decent psephologists focus on the England & Wales figures.
In 2015 England saw a 1% swing to Labour - with Wales swinging to Tories.
If that's even remotely accurate, it puts the constant, pettifogging carping from certain quarters into perspective. On that projection, the Tories aren't just winning right now, they're lapping their nearest competitor!
Agreed there are some very strange projections there. Conservatives to win both Hull East and Hull West and Hessle? Also I can't see which would be the Lib Dems gains. Wimbledon?
In fairness, the Cons got quite close in Hull East last time. There are 30 seats (mostly in the North and Midlands where the Cons got within 3% last time:
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15% 2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22% 3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25% 4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33% 5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45% 6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55% 7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73% 8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73% 9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00% 10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04% 11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25% 12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32% 13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34% 14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53% 15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61% 16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62% 17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62% 18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83% 19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85% 20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91% 21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06% 22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21% 23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50% 24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60% 25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63% 26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74% 27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75% 28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76% 29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91% 30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
But in its entirety England & Wales did so.
Lib Dem Surge! Potential gains are Wimbledon, Winchester and Cheltenham, but Westmorland and Lonsdale gets even closer.
Comments
Prince Harry is the Ed Miliband de nos jours. Discuss.
I am not saying it was rubbish or a failure, just that the reaction to it being cancelled, major front page stories on the BBC, Guardian, etc for a show with a small audience in the US was totally out of proportion. Major US network can shows with 2 million audience every few months.
But it was because it was very popular with those that right these pieces and their social circle. Its a cult classic to them, but the wider British public, I doubt very many people have watched it.
Mash Report I think is probably the same. Its getting front page reporting, twitter melting down, but it got less than a million viewers, 200k less than shows normally in that slot.
Its a shame if its gone but to be honest its had a good run. Wouldn't have been bad if they'd wrapped it up with the wedding.
Yes its diverse but its not hit you over the head diverse, at least most of the time, its just well written and funny.
Since you spoke about viral scenes, this one has to be one of the best (needs sound on).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlBYdiXdUa8
Anyway, it isn't very important, and I sound like I am getting obsessed with it. Just thought it was interesting to see the (over)reaction.
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15%
2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22%
3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25%
4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33%
5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45%
6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55%
7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73%
8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73%
9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00%
10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04%
11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25%
12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32%
13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34%
14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53%
15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61%
16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62%
17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62%
18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83%
19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85%
20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91%
21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06%
22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21%
23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50%
24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60%
25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63%
26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74%
27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75%
28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76%
29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91%
30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
Tbf to the government, which is not my instinct, they always intended to do this.
Unfortunately, this is an area which is hugely legislatively complex. No country has made it illegal where they don't have therapy as a profession. We don't.
Define conversion.
Define therapy.
Then who judges?
There is no professional body as for teachers, doctors and lawyers. Literally anyone can offer therapy.
We could have @Casino_Royale offering anger management or @Leon offering Zen like equanimity.
And that is before the religious angle.
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1370418429174353926?s=20
Are you a lumberjack who prepares logs?
That is of the same type as the lamentable decision on the Cumbria Coalmine.
I guess we just need Peston to confirm it.
The only exception is I think Biontec (sp?) and maybe Moderna, and that was Germany before the Ursula and Mutti made them stop.
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone
(2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
Procurement is contractual however
As for your last point, they should Prince Philip front and centre for that.
I passed an ice-cream van on tuesday - 20 kids clustered around it and 10 parents. Insane.
Far better from their standpoint just to have it hanging it out there and wallow in their victimhood with everyone praising them for their "courage" in dealing with racism.
It's his job to repair the damage he's done.
And, of course, most therapists in practice today have no more than a level 4.
Which has no gender or sexuality training of any kind as a requirement.
And where, anyway, is the line drawn between "I am attracted to the same sex, which makes me uncomfortable/ is inconvenient/ goes against my religious beliefs, etc." Which it is the duty of the therapist to hear with unconditional positive regard, and possibly suggest strategies.
And converting them?
Then there isn't any body to sit in judgement of that line in this country anyways.
A Tory lead of 7.9% in 2021 is highly unlikely to produce a bigger Tory majority than their 11.7% lead at the end of 2019. Going back further, the Tories led by 7.6% under Major in 1992 yet only managed a majority of 21. Camerons 6% lead in 2015 saw a majority of just 12. This model is nonsense.
1. If it was one of those in the direct line of succession then it's much worse, so they would be holding back not to say that explicitly.
2. If it was a relatively obscure member of the family then many might shrug their shoulders, so they would be maximising impact to leave it vague.
3. If they don't name then it makes it harder for the person responsible to defend themself.
4. By not naming they might have hoped to keep the focus on their experience of it, and how that made them feel.
Who can say which is closer to the mark?
Never their own actions or behaviour.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
People aren't half as snowflakey as Twitter would lead you to believe, and that lot will still scream like mules about it anyway.
People who are pretty racist themselves will almost always self-report that they are not. Sometimes with a rhetorical flourish. "Not a racist bone in their bodies" being the default there. And often they will truly believe this. Whether they do or they don't, it means that when asked whether they think something is racist, they will tend to say "no", even if to somebody who is truly not racist, or much less racist, it patently is.
This, I suggest, explains much of the Republican/Democrat split in this poll.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
The aim should really be to shut the Sussexes up by mutual consent, or failing that, discredit them completely so that people are less and less interested each time they decide to get some more column inches by telling more tales of royal racist woe.
If it came to the latter, I'd suggest
A) If the Meghan bullying allegations are true, ensuring that information enters the public domain, and the victims are rightly compensated
B ) If Archiegate is overblown, this should also enter the public domain
(Incidentally Richard, yes, I have been absent during the day due to being back at school. Hope your family have been able to reintegrate smoothly. The process the government insist on has been a complete mess.)
A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
After the year they have had, I'm sure their young voters will be out in droves.
Or maybe not.
1) A WTO Brexit which may still happen
2) The implications for another Indyref and what happens if the Scots secede
and finally
3) NFTs and cryptocurrencies in a world of AML regulations and UWOs.
Harry and Meghan's main complaint is Meghan's treatment by the tabloids, not the alleged racism of the royal family. It has been all along. It seems to me unsurprising that the tabloids would focus almost entirely on the apparent besmirching of the good name of the royal family rather than the running sore of the tabloids' shoddy treatment of Meghan. I guess the couple's mistake was to give the tabloids the excuse to conveniently set aside the substance of the complaint against them (the tabloids) and focus on an entirely speculative story about who may or may not be a bit dodgy on race in the royal family.
My son finds it difficult to keep up in some face to face lessons but has thrived in the remote learning environment so in some ways I am sad to see him go back to school. He also sees his friends less at school at the moment because of restrictions. It was much easier to chat with them online when everyone was at home.
The income he receives now is from the Duchy of Lancaster, the Queen's private estate
Only joking, no one needs Toby Young.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1370431126930477056?s=20
1. Bedford East of England 145 0.15%
2. Coventry North West West Midlands 208 0.22%
3. Alyn and Deeside Wales 213 0.25%
4. Dagenham and Rainham London 293 0.33%
5. Coventry South West Midlands 401 0.45%
6. Weaver Vale North West 562 0.55%
7. Warwick and Leamington West Midlands 789 0.73%
8. Gordon Scotland 819 0.73%
9. Wansbeck North East 814 1.00%
10. Newport West Wales 902 1.04%
11. Stockton North North East 1,027 1.25%
12. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford Yorkshire and the Humber 1,276 1.32%
13. Hemsworth Yorkshire and the Humber 1,180 1.34%
14. Canterbury South East 1,836 1.53%
15. Chesterfield East Midlands 1,451 1.61%
16. Warrington North North West 1,509 1.62%
17. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 1,499 1.62%
18. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 1,934 1.83%
19. Wolverhampton South East West Midlands 1,235 1.85%
20. Hull East Yorkshire and the Humber 1,239 1.91%
21. Gower Wales 1,837 2.06%
22. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 1,809 2.21%
23. Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock Scotland 2,329 2.50%
24. Wentworth and Dearne Yorkshire and the Humber 2,165 2.60%
25. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 2,380 2.63%
26. Doncaster Central Yorkshire and the Humber 2,278 2.74%
27. Newport East Wales 1,992 2.75%
28. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 2,569 2.76%
29. Doncaster North Yorkshire and the Humber 2,370 2.91%
30. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 2,346 2.95%
What most of these have in common is a Brexit vote of around 10-15%. If the Cons can mop up this vote next time then they might be able to make some gains, even if they go backwards nationally. Boundary changes won't help Lab incumbents in some of these places (although they won't help some of the new Tory MPs elsewhere)
I now see that the 'model' assumes party vote shares of Con 43% Lab 35.1% - Con lead 7.9%. That compares with a Tory lead of 11.7% in Dec 2019 - representing a pro- Labour swing of 1.9% which implies 18 Labour gains and a Tory majority of 40 - 50 seats. This model is gibberish!
You can't say that, there was a swing to Labour from the Tories in England & Wales which implied a decent number of gains for Labour, the reality was net gain of two seats.
Are you referring to 2015? If so , the pro- Labour swing in England was 1%. Wales actually swung to the Tories in 2015 - indeed Gower narrowly fell that year though not in 2019.
Yes, 2015. There was a swing in England & Wales to Labour which wasn't reflected in the seat numbers.
Again - Wales did not swing to Labour. The Tories benefitted in England from the first term incumbency bonus.
But in its entirety England & Wales did so.
Across GB the pro-Labour swing that year was 0.5%.
The GB swing that year is very misleading, that's why all decent psephologists focus on the England & Wales figures.
In 2015 England saw a 1% swing to Labour - with Wales swinging to Tories.
From cases
from hospitalisations