Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
The new Liverpool Mayor has the same surname but is unrelated, I believe.
Oops how embarrassing. Apologies now to Liverpool Labour association...
This hijacked plane in Belarus is going to cause huge problems for NATO and the EU tomorrow.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
Because Lukashenko has lost what shaky grasp of reality he ever had.
I expect this was instigated and sanctioned by Putin.
'Its OK that this person said "Hitler was right", they said that before we hired them' is a rather bizarre train of logic. Personally it'd make me wonder why they were hired after they'd said it, not the other way around.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
Well that's OK then. As long as it's only Arizona and Georgia (and Florida and Texas) the Dems are good! Sometimes you have a very simple black and white view of the World...
Technically it would be, Biden would still have won the EC in 2020 even had Trump won Arizona and Georgia if the other results stayed the same (including Trump winning Florida and Texas)
Well we're not talking about 2020 are we! Even the GOP doesn't have the power to change laws retrospectively. You are effectively trying to argue with my assertion that the states aren't a problem, because if everyone votes the same way in 2024 as in 2020 (voter suppression not withstanding) then there aren't enough states with the power to change their laws to affect the ultimate outcome.
Which is up there with Trump saying that he must have won the election because he got 75m (sic) votes, more than in 2016, and therefore Biden getting 81m and winning was a statistical impossibility.
It is quite possible it could work the other way too eg North Carolina has a Democratic governor as does Louisiana, as does West Virginia as does South Dakota and in Alaska the governor and the House are Democratic controlled.
All were states won by Trump so if the Democrats won the legislature too they could also in theory appoint the state's electors pre election
This hijacked plane in Belarus is going to cause huge problems for NATO and the EU tomorrow.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
Because Lukashenko has lost what shaky grasp of reality he ever had.
I expect this was instigated and sanctioned by Putin.
Substitute ‘Putin’ for ‘Lukashenko’ and that still works.
Lukashenka doesn't fart without Putin's say-so. Looks like Uncle Vova's next scheme to tweak our tail. Using Lukashenka gives him (barely) plausible deniability but his fan base (and enemies) in Russia know exactly what's going on. No he hasn't lost his grasp of reality, far from it.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
Not just that, but as a history graduate he imagines that he knows everything that matters about science and technology.
The biggest significance of the Cummings issue is that Johnson thought enough of him to make him Chief of Staff, and leave him in charge. It shows a shocking lack of judgement. At least Carrie Antoinette saw through him, I suppose.
This hijacked plane in Belarus is going to cause huge problems for NATO and the EU tomorrow.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
In the American Civil War the Union stopped and boarded a British ship which had two Confederate envoys on board: that nearly lead to the British joining the war on the side of the CSA until the two were released.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
Not just that, but as a history graduate he imagines that he knows everything that matters about science and technology.
The biggest significance of the Cummings issue is that Johnson thought enough of him to make him Chief of Staff, and leave him in charge. It shows a shocking lack of judgement. At least Carrie Antoinette saw through him, I suppose.
He was a very good Chief of Staff until he'd finished serving his purpose.
It's a 50-tweet diatribe. Can't one of the wealthier PBers pay someone to read Cummings' works and post summaries?
Yes.
‘I am awesome.
Everyone else is fucking thick.
If we’d done what I said, the country would have been fine.’
Disturbing to note he has the same avatar as @Fysics_Teacher who will not be flattered by the comparison...
I assume with that credo, he posts here. People making the same arguments repeatedly independent of facts, referring to “my model” etc etc*. This time it’s different.
*Ignoring the current devotion to The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
Well that's OK then. As long as it's only Arizona and Georgia (and Florida and Texas) the Dems are good! Sometimes you have a very simple black and white view of the World...
Technically it would be, Biden would still have won the EC in 2020 even had Trump won Arizona and Georgia if the other results stayed the same (including Trump winning Florida and Texas)
Well we're not talking about 2020 are we! Even the GOP doesn't have the power to change laws retrospectively. You are effectively trying to argue with my assertion that the states aren't a problem, because if everyone votes the same way in 2024 as in 2020 (voter suppression not withstanding) then there aren't enough states with the power to change their laws to affect the ultimate outcome.
Which is up there with Trump saying that he must have won the election because he got 75m (sic) votes, more than in 2016, and therefore Biden getting 81m and winning was a statistical impossibility.
It is quite possible it could work the other way too eg North Carolina has a Democratic governor as does Louisiana, as does West Virginia as does South Dakota and in Alaska the governor and the House are Democratic controlled.
All were states won by Trump so if the Democrats won the legislature too they could also in theory appoint the state's electors pre election
I'm increasingly not sure if you're trolling or actually trying to engage in an argument. 2020 established that the states have no legal right under their current state laws to take overturn the result of the election of their state representatives to the electoral college, whatever the ridiculous circus that was Trump's legal team tried to claim.
The whole point here is that GOP controlled state legislatures are trying to change their state laws to make this a theoretical possibility.
There are no Democratic state legislatures trying to do this. So quite why you think this is remotely relevant i've no idea. And i'm not even sure how you've managed to come to the conclusion that the opposite could happen in reverse in West Virginia, Louisiana or Alaska, even if the Democrats wanted to. They don't control the state legislature in any of them. And aren't remotely likely to in future.
'Its OK that this person said "Hitler was right", they said that before we hired them' is a rather bizarre train of logic. Personally it'd make me wonder why they were hired after they'd said it, not the other way around.
A quick glance shows the rather more nuanced, BBC just come back with this statement: “These tweets predate the individual’s employment with the BBC but we are nevertheless taking this very seriously and are investigating.”
It's a 50-tweet diatribe. Can't one of the wealthier PBers pay someone to read Cummings' works and post summaries?
Yes.
‘I am awesome.
Everyone else is fucking thick.
If we’d done what I said, the country would have been fine.’
Disturbing to note he has the same avatar as @Fysics_Teacher who will not be flattered by the comparison...
I assume with that credo, he posts here. People making the same arguments repeatedly independent of facts, referring to “my model” etc etc*. This time it’s different.
*Ignoring the current devotion to The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
Not just that, but as a history graduate he imagines that he knows everything that matters about science and technology.
The biggest significance of the Cummings issue is that Johnson thought enough of him to make him Chief of Staff, and leave him in charge. It shows a shocking lack of judgement. At least Carrie Antoinette saw through him, I suppose.
I think there’s a high probably he’ll have a go at Whitty, Valance, JVT etc. and the system will take him down by letting a lot of his crap out.
You are right though, you have to look to the man who appointed him as being responsible.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
Not just that, but as a history graduate he imagines that he knows everything that matters about science and technology.
The biggest significance of the Cummings issue is that Johnson thought enough of him to make him Chief of Staff, and leave him in charge. It shows a shocking lack of judgement. At least Carrie Antoinette saw through him, I suppose.
I think there’s a high probably he’ll have a go at Whitty, Valance, JVT etc. and the system will take him down by letting a lot of his crap out.
You are right though, you have to look to the man who appointed him as being responsible.
And all of that will be incredibly funny to watch.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
It's a 50-tweet diatribe. Can't one of the wealthier PBers pay someone to read Cummings' works and post summaries?
Yes.
‘I am awesome.
Everyone else is fucking thick.
If we’d done what I said, the country would have been fine.’
Disturbing to note he has the same avatar as @Fysics_Teacher who will not be flattered by the comparison...
I assume with that credo, he posts here. People making the same arguments repeatedly independent of facts, referring to “my model” etc etc*. This time it’s different.
*Ignoring the current devotion to The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
I think he’s either an alien or he escaped from a Chinese lab.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
Not just that, but as a history graduate he imagines that he knows everything that matters about science and technology.
The biggest significance of the Cummings issue is that Johnson thought enough of him to make him Chief of Staff, and leave him in charge. It shows a shocking lack of judgement. At least Carrie Antoinette saw through him, I suppose.
I think there’s a high probably he’ll have a go at Whitty, Valance, JVT etc. and the system will take him down by letting a lot of his crap out.
You are right though, you have to look to the man who appointed him as being responsible.
Who has ever accused BJ of being a responsible person?
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
To be fair, assuming that a simple theory allows you to control everything is an occupational hazard of being a physicist (which he isn't) or spending too long talking to physicists (which he has).
What we're blooming good at is simplifying problems to make them solvable. In the material world, you can often do that without doing too much harm to the problem.
It's like the old gag about the physicist who develops an equation to predict the outcomes of horse races (you know, one spherical horse moving in empty space). For most problems of government, cutting of inconvenient details doesn't work. Arguably, wars and pandemics are two of the few exceptions.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
To be fair, assuming that a simple theory allows you to control everything is an occupational hazard of being a physicist (which he isn't) or spending too long talking to physicists (which he has).
What we're blooming good at is simplifying problems to make them solvable. In the material world, you can often do that without doing too much harm to the problem.
It's like the old gag about the physicist who develops an equation to predict the outcomes of horse races (you know, one spherical horse moving in empty space). For most problems of government, cutting of inconvenient details doesn't work. Arguably, wars and pandemics are two of the few exceptions.
"Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult."
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Even X Factor leaves musicians a bit tainted, and that's seen as a rung above Eurovision. To be a Eurovision winner is probably not high on the list of aspirations for many UK musicians, it is not something perceived as having any credibility at all, it's on a par with being a novelty act.
But I think people who want to win X-factor would probably be ok with also doing Eurovision. I think it would allow ITV to switch BGT into the Xmas schedule as well and X-factor into the barren spring schedule.
The issue is that it would require ITV to want to do it given that Eurovision is a BBC show and will be on the BBC for the foreseeable future.
Why not be more British? Why bland MOR? We have a wonderful modern folk tradition for example. The Unthanks spring to mind. Other countries use their native sounds.
They are free to enter are they not? I don't know whether we still have a local competition, I don't watch it, but afaik anyone can write a song and enter it.
It's a 50-tweet diatribe. Can't one of the wealthier PBers pay someone to read Cummings' works and post summaries?
Yes.
‘I am awesome.
Everyone else is fucking thick.
If we’d done what I said, the country would have been fine.’
Disturbing to note he has the same avatar as @Fysics_Teacher who will not be flattered by the comparison...
I assume with that credo, he posts here. People making the same arguments repeatedly independent of facts, referring to “my model” etc etc*. This time it’s different.
*Ignoring the current devotion to The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
I think he’s either an alien or he escaped from a Chinese lab.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Or Scots Gaelic, to mess with the SNP’s heads like you can’t believe it?
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
To be fair, assuming that a simple theory allows you to control everything is an occupational hazard of being a physicist (which he isn't) or spending too long talking to physicists (which he has).
What we're blooming good at is simplifying problems to make them solvable. In the material world, you can often do that without doing too much harm to the problem.
It's like the old gag about the physicist who develops an equation to predict the outcomes of horse races (you know, one spherical horse moving in empty space). For most problems of government, cutting of inconvenient details doesn't work. Arguably, wars and pandemics are two of the few exceptions.
As the joke went I was a physics undergrad:
Biology is really chemistry, chemistry is really physics, physics is really maths, and maths is really hard.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Or Scots Gaelic, to mess with the SNP’s heads like you can’t believe it?
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
To be fair, assuming that a simple theory allows you to control everything is an occupational hazard of being a physicist (which he isn't) or spending too long talking to physicists (which he has).
What we're blooming good at is simplifying problems to make them solvable. In the material world, you can often do that without doing too much harm to the problem.
It's like the old gag about the physicist who develops an equation to predict the outcomes of horse races (you know, one spherical horse moving in empty space). For most problems of government, cutting of inconvenient details doesn't work. Arguably, wars and pandemics are two of the few exceptions.
As the joke went I was a physics undergrad:
Biology is really chemistry, chemistry is really physics, physics is really maths, and maths is really hard.
Harsh but true. I still remember the day (towards the end of first year Natural Sciences at University) where I stopped being able to sustain the belief needed to learn any more maths.
I'd gone a certain distance into the unknowable, and that was it.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
If people preferred songs where they understood the words then the ENO would be doing a lot better than they are.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
The new Liverpool Mayor has the same surname but is unrelated, I believe.
Yes, it was rather amusing that Labour replaced Jo Anderson with Joanne Anderson - but they aren't related.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
To be fair, assuming that a simple theory allows you to control everything is an occupational hazard of being a physicist (which he isn't) or spending too long talking to physicists (which he has).
What we're blooming good at is simplifying problems to make them solvable. In the material world, you can often do that without doing too much harm to the problem.
It's like the old gag about the physicist who develops an equation to predict the outcomes of horse races (you know, one spherical horse moving in empty space). For most problems of government, cutting of inconvenient details doesn't work. Arguably, wars and pandemics are two of the few exceptions.
As the joke went I was a physics undergrad:
Biology is really chemistry, chemistry is really physics, physics is really maths, and maths is really hard.
Harsh but true. I still remember the day (towards the end of first year Natural Sciences at University) where I stopped being able to sustain the belief needed to learn any more maths.
I'd gone a certain distance into the unknowable, and that was it.
Happens to almost all of us at some point I think: for me it was eigenvectors of four by four matrices.
No, I never dismissed the lab leak theory. On the initial, now clearly inaccurate, data, the market hypothesis did seem the most reasonable, but as far back as 2015 I warned of the potential culture issues with regards to safety in BSL4 labs (quoted as such in Nature, no less).
I dismissed the design for purpose theory, but not other possibilities, such as accidental release or even the virus evolving in the lab. Indeed, back in April last year, I wrote a risk management scenario for use in lab training on the possibility of unintended evolution of the virus through propagation in human lung epithelial cells.
There are multiple instances of me saying similar to the NYT, WP and NPR, but I can't be bothered to find them. I have also consistently pointed out Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest and how absurd it was that he was on the WHO team.
The key attributes of a conspiracy theory: 1. Specificity 2. Plausibility 3. Undeniability 4. No real evidence for the theory in preference to other more usual explanations
The Lab Leak theory meets all four criteria. The assertion is highly specific, not only identifying the institute but suggesting a particular employee of it being responsible. A lab accidentally releasing a virus into the wild is very plausible, more so than associates of Prince Charles murdering Diana. The data isn't there to definitively prove a specific alternative explanation. From what I have seen at least, the Lab Leak is nothing more than associating the coincidence of a virology institute known to be researching similar viruses being in the neighbourhood of an early outbreak.
New viruses are regrettably common events. The likeliest explanation is that Covid 19 originated in the same way as all the others do. But that seems a feeble riposte. The theory will endure.
There is ample evidence. Try reading, rather than asserting. Start with that Bulletin essay. It is very powerful
This isn't as good but it is interesting, because it comes from an esteemed journalist who was a full on Natural Origins Wet Marketeer, and now he admits to serious doubts
Several crucial paragraphs. The genetic stuff:
'Nick Wade [author of the Bulletin article] quoted David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize for his work with viruses, as saying the specific amino acid sequences in the cleavage site made “a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin.” '
And then there's the biosafety angle:
"I spoke about Nick’s article last week with Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, the renowned Columbia University virus hunter who was one of the five co-authors on the seminal “proximal origin” paper.
"He favored a natural origin theory, he said, in part because he had assumed that all the Wuhan Institute’s 2019 work with SARS-like viruses had been done in its top-level BSL-4 lab, which was cleared to operate in 2017. (State Department cables from 2018 raised questions about how well-run the lab was.)
"But later he learned of studies with Dr. Shi’s name on them showing that work he considers dangerous had been done in level BSL-2 labs, which he considers highly porous to leaks, not just in 2016, but in 2020. “That’s screwed up,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”"
And it turns out the "bat woman" at the lab has been lying about her research:
"Dr. Shi herself later told Scientific American that, when news of the new virus erupted, her first fear was that it had come from her institute. She did not sleep for days, she said, until she had finished checking her lab’s logs and assured herself that it had not.
"Since then, though, more has come to light about the work done by Dr. Shi’s teams. The most startling bit of information was that, rather than “finding” RaTG13 in her freezers in February, Dr. Shi had worked with it since at least 2016, but under a different name, RaBtCoV/4991.
Of all the hypotheses, It Came From The Lab has the best evidence, the most logic, and triumphs over Occam's Razor. The other's don't
As he says:
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
I read the Nicholas Wade article, which is long. Part of it deconstructs evidence against the Lab Leak theory. It is really saying no-one has proved the negative for the theory, which we know and was my conspiracy theories point 3. Part of it draws attention to coincidences, which is restating the theory and isn't evidence as such.
It gets more interesting where he constructs a case for normal natural evolution being unlikely.Unfortunately I don't have the deep knowledge to judge one way or the other, except to point out at least some virologists think Covid 19 has the hallmarks of evolving naturally.
I think Wade is wrong on at least two points. There were broadly concurrent December outbreaks in Wuhan and Guangdong. Wherever Covid did start it wasn't with either of those outbreaks - it had been going for at least a month by then. Also he points out as a kind of dog that doesn't bark, no specific origin has been found for Covid, unlike SARS where they identified the origin in 4 months. I think it actually took many years and some luck to identify a bat cave in Yunnan province, a long distance from Guangdong, the documented first location of SARS - distance being another of his objections to a natural evolution of Covid 19. Incidentally no origin has been found for Ebola.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
If people preferred songs where they understood the words then the ENO would be doing a lot better than they are.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
Well that's OK then. As long as it's only Arizona and Georgia (and Florida and Texas) the Dems are good! Sometimes you have a very simple black and white view of the World...
Technically it would be, Biden would still have won the EC in 2020 even had Trump won Arizona and Georgia if the other results stayed the same (including Trump winning Florida and Texas)
Well we're not talking about 2020 are we! Even the GOP doesn't have the power to change laws retrospectively. You are effectively trying to argue with my assertion that the states aren't a problem, because if everyone votes the same way in 2024 as in 2020 (voter suppression not withstanding) then there aren't enough states with the power to change their laws to affect the ultimate outcome.
Which is up there with Trump saying that he must have won the election because he got 75m (sic) votes, more than in 2016, and therefore Biden getting 81m and winning was a statistical impossibility.
It is quite possible it could work the other way too eg North Carolina has a Democratic governor as does Louisiana, as does West Virginia as does South Dakota and in Alaska the governor and the House are Democratic controlled.
All were states won by Trump so if the Democrats won the legislature too they could also in theory appoint the state's electors pre election
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
I don't think that accounts for this year. Only Iceland of the top 5 was in English, the rest in native languages.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
Well that's OK then. As long as it's only Arizona and Georgia (and Florida and Texas) the Dems are good! Sometimes you have a very simple black and white view of the World...
Technically it would be, Biden would still have won the EC in 2020 even had Trump won Arizona and Georgia if the other results stayed the same (including Trump winning Florida and Texas)
Well we're not talking about 2020 are we! Even the GOP doesn't have the power to change laws retrospectively. You are effectively trying to argue with my assertion that the states aren't a problem, because if everyone votes the same way in 2024 as in 2020 (voter suppression not withstanding) then there aren't enough states with the power to change their laws to affect the ultimate outcome.
Which is up there with Trump saying that he must have won the election because he got 75m (sic) votes, more than in 2016, and therefore Biden getting 81m and winning was a statistical impossibility.
It is quite possible it could work the other way too eg North Carolina has a Democratic governor as does Louisiana, as does West Virginia as does South Dakota and in Alaska the governor and the House are Democratic controlled.
All were states won by Trump so if the Democrats won the legislature too they could also in theory appoint the state's electors pre election
I'm increasingly not sure if you're trolling or actually trying to engage in an argument. 2020 established that the states have no legal right under their current state laws to take overturn the result of the election of their state representatives to the electoral college, whatever the ridiculous circus that was Trump's legal team tried to claim.
The whole point here is that GOP controlled state legislatures are trying to change their state laws to make this a theoretical possibility.
There are no Democratic state legislatures trying to do this. So quite why you think this is remotely relevant i've no idea. And i'm not even sure how you've managed to come to the conclusion that the opposite could happen in reverse in West Virginia, Louisiana or Alaska, even if the Democrats wanted to. They don't control the state legislature in any of them. And aren't remotely likely to in future.
I mean - some people's attempts at "both siding" what is happening in the US is pretty outrageous. But you are the first person i have seen try to argue a "both siding" position on the grounds of the Democratic "side" being able (theoretically, if the political composition of state legislatures changed) to do things that they aren't actually doing, or considering doing where they have the power!
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
In addition it is 30 years since Italy last won, 7 years longer than the UK. With 26 in the final, we should not expect to win that often.
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Even X Factor leaves musicians a bit tainted, and that's seen as a rung above Eurovision. To be a Eurovision winner is probably not high on the list of aspirations for many UK musicians, it is not something perceived as having any credibility at all, it's on a par with being a novelty act.
But I think people who want to win X-factor would probably be ok with also doing Eurovision. I think it would allow ITV to switch BGT into the Xmas schedule as well and X-factor into the barren spring schedule.
The issue is that it would require ITV to want to do it given that Eurovision is a BBC show and will be on the BBC for the foreseeable future.
Why not be more British? Why bland MOR? We have a wonderful modern folk tradition for example. The Unthanks spring to mind. Other countries use their native sounds.
They are free to enter are they not? I don't know whether we still have a local competition, I don't watch it, but afaik anyone can write a song and enter it.
Yep. My complaint was more about the selection. The blandest possible. And, I assume the lack of any proactive search for summat different. Right now why would they enter? An X Factor semi finalist clone would be chosen anyway.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
I don't think that accounts for this year. Only Iceland of the top 5 was in English, the rest in native languages.
Maybe we just entered a lame song.
Well of course we did. But the point is that even lame songs used to pick up a reasonable haul of votes when it was one of the few songs that people across Europe could understand. We still needed decent songs to actually win it!
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
The new Liverpool Mayor has the same surname but is unrelated, I believe.
Yes, it was rather amusing that Labour replaced Jo Anderson with Joanne Anderson - but they aren't related.
To be fair they don't look related in the slightest to my untrained eye.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
The new Liverpool Mayor has the same surname but is unrelated, I believe.
Yes, it was rather amusing that Labour replaced Joe Anderson with Joanne Anderson - but they aren't related.
To be fair they don't look related in the slightest to my untrained eye.
My faux pas notwithstanding (the real family connection was Jo Anderson and his brother...) it would be interesting to know how many people voted for Jo(anne) Anderson, thinking they were voting for the former Mayor!
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
If people preferred songs where they understood the words then the ENO would be doing a lot better than they are.
ENO?
English National Opera: they perform all operas in English rather than the original languages. It made more sense in the days before surtitles, but not so much now.
Bit of a disappointing match for Leicester today, but good to be at a stadium in person . It all went wrong with a critical injury again, in defence this time to Wes Fofana.
Weird to have no away fans to taunt, so strangely silent when Spurs scored. I hope they enjoy the European Conference League 🤣
Nice to see the FA Cup paraded though, and out Chaiman chucked me a t short in his post match walk around.
FWIW I am tending to a tediously complex but mundane conclusion. *Some* people in the US miltary and CIA etc really DO believe there is Something Out There (very probably wrongly, but not definitely), and they are being used by other Americans (higher up?) to play psy-ops on the Chinese and Russians, to freak them out and make them wary of potential US tech
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
What really strikes me about the poll is the shortage of people who actually put democracy first before their preferred political outcomes.
I think Brexit is terrible. I disapprove of the Tory government. But it would never cross my mind to deny their right to win majorities, and I've always thought most people on the centre-right agree - and in Britain, I think they do. But in the US, about a quarter of the electorate are willing to put up with anything to get their way.
Yeah, but the Left "does the same", in America
I don't think you grasp how intense the Woke agenda is, in the USA, and how it is being forced on a lot of unhappy people. The right think the Left is trying to destroy the country and remake it in a Woke style. A kind of cultural coup is underaway, and whites, Republicans and "patriots" are the target
If you believe there is a coup against your democracy, then democracy can go hang, for a while. First you need to fight and WIN
I'm not justifying this stance, of course, but I think this explains the poll above
There’s a lot of incentive for commentators on the right to 'big up' the woke threat in order to justify undermining democracy in the US. From the outside it seems that without rampant gerry mandering & voter suppression, the Republican Party in it’s current form would have no chance of victory in any national election - it’s only through a continuous campaign of fear & loathing targetting their own supporters that they can justify these anti-democratic policies.
The Left AND the Right in America are engaged in an insane Arms Race of Stupidity. One minute the Left does something crazy and Woke which will only provoke Republicans, a minute later the Republicans are duly provoked, and they do something crazy, in response.
I really fear for the country. So polarised. Social media must take a lot of the blame
The solution is a moderate Republican president. To calm the Right, but make peace with the Left. Doesn't seem likely
The problem being that 'moderate' Republicans pander to the rich and big business.
In many ways Trump, while being deranged and corrupt, was more moderate than the traditional GOP.
There is a category error in some of the comments here. Objecting to a woke agenda or worrying about big business getting favo(u)rs are both things that candidates can raise in elections and seek support to oppose. trying to rig the system so your opponents can't vote is Something Else.
Fair point Nick.
I was merely suggesting how the GOP had got themselves into their current state within the limits of my understanding and mindset.
The behaviour of the GOP beyond that level is rather beyond my understanding and mindset.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
In addition it is 30 years since Italy last won, 7 years longer than the UK. With 26 in the final, we should not expect to win that often.
If there were a Eurovision Wine Contest then the French would be a bit irritated if they didn't win for over two decades. The UK is known for its contribution to modern music and ought to be winning a bit more often than it does.
The fact that the songs we put up are usually rubbish doesn't help.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
If people preferred songs where they understood the words then the ENO would be doing a lot better than they are.
ENO?
English National Opera: they perform all operas in English rather than the original languages. It made more sense in the days before surtitles, but not so much now.
Not sure that follows... What that says is that people that like/patronise opera don't prefer songs that they understand the words to.
I assume that the idea behind the ENO was an attempt to open up opera to the masses (which in itself supports the idea as a working hypothesis - and you indeed acknowledge that it made sense). Maybe "the masses" just don't really like opera that much, and that is what explains why it isn't/wasn't more successful...
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
Are there any PBers from Camden Town (Primrose Hill borders) ?
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
That idea sounds like it would thoroughly deserve zero points.
My other plan, which would have the bonus of really annoying her, is for us to pick a Polish singer with a band from across Eastern Europe. They could even sing in Polish.
More seriously, why not something in Welsh?
Isn't it well established that the fortunes of the UK (and Ireland) in Eurovision very directly coincided with the abolition of the language rule in 1999. Before then the UK did very well because people were more likely to vote for songs where they understood the words?
If people preferred songs where they understood the words then the ENO would be doing a lot better than they are.
ENO?
English National Opera: they perform all operas in English rather than the original languages. It made more sense in the days before surtitles, but not so much now.
Not sure that follows... What that says is that people that like/patronise opera don't prefer songs that they understand the words to.
I assume that the idea behind the ENO was an attempt to open up opera to the masses (which in itself supports the idea as a working hypothesis - and you indeed acknowledge that it made sense). Maybe "the masses" just don't really like opera that much, and that is what explains why it isn't/wasn't more successful...
The ticket price and the uncomfortable seats (at least the ones that I can afford are uncomfortable) don't help.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
No, I never dismissed the lab leak theory. On the initial, now clearly inaccurate, data, the market hypothesis did seem the most reasonable, but as far back as 2015 I warned of the potential culture issues with regards to safety in BSL4 labs (quoted as such in Nature, no less).
I dismissed the design for purpose theory, but not other possibilities, such as accidental release or even the virus evolving in the lab. Indeed, back in April last year, I wrote a risk management scenario for use in lab training on the possibility of unintended evolution of the virus through propagation in human lung epithelial cells.
There are multiple instances of me saying similar to the NYT, WP and NPR, but I can't be bothered to find them. I have also consistently pointed out Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest and how absurd it was that he was on the WHO team.
The key attributes of a conspiracy theory: 1. Specificity 2. Plausibility 3. Undeniability 4. No real evidence for the theory in preference to other more usual explanations
The Lab Leak theory meets all four criteria. The assertion is highly specific, not only identifying the institute but suggesting a particular employee of it being responsible. A lab accidentally releasing a virus into the wild is very plausible, more so than associates of Prince Charles murdering Diana. The data isn't there to definitively prove a specific alternative explanation. From what I have seen at least, the Lab Leak is nothing more than associating the coincidence of a virology institute known to be researching similar viruses being in the neighbourhood of an early outbreak.
New viruses are regrettably common events. The likeliest explanation is that Covid 19 originated in the same way as all the others do. But that seems a feeble riposte. The theory will endure.
There is ample evidence. Try reading, rather than asserting. Start with that Bulletin essay. It is very powerful
This isn't as good but it is interesting, because it comes from an esteemed journalist who was a full on Natural Origins Wet Marketeer, and now he admits to serious doubts
Several crucial paragraphs. The genetic stuff:
'Nick Wade [author of the Bulletin article] quoted David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize for his work with viruses, as saying the specific amino acid sequences in the cleavage site made “a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin.” '
And then there's the biosafety angle:
"I spoke about Nick’s article last week with Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, the renowned Columbia University virus hunter who was one of the five co-authors on the seminal “proximal origin” paper.
"He favored a natural origin theory, he said, in part because he had assumed that all the Wuhan Institute’s 2019 work with SARS-like viruses had been done in its top-level BSL-4 lab, which was cleared to operate in 2017. (State Department cables from 2018 raised questions about how well-run the lab was.)
"But later he learned of studies with Dr. Shi’s name on them showing that work he considers dangerous had been done in level BSL-2 labs, which he considers highly porous to leaks, not just in 2016, but in 2020. “That’s screwed up,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”"
And it turns out the "bat woman" at the lab has been lying about her research:
"Dr. Shi herself later told Scientific American that, when news of the new virus erupted, her first fear was that it had come from her institute. She did not sleep for days, she said, until she had finished checking her lab’s logs and assured herself that it had not.
"Since then, though, more has come to light about the work done by Dr. Shi’s teams. The most startling bit of information was that, rather than “finding” RaTG13 in her freezers in February, Dr. Shi had worked with it since at least 2016, but under a different name, RaBtCoV/4991.
Of all the hypotheses, It Came From The Lab has the best evidence, the most logic, and triumphs over Occam's Razor. The other's don't
As he says:
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
I read the Nicholas Wade article, which is long. Part of it deconstructs evidence against the Lab Leak theory. It is really saying no-one has proved the negative for the theory, which we know and was my conspiracy theories point 3. Part of it draws attention to coincidences, which is restating the theory and isn't evidence as such.
It gets more interesting where he constructs a case for normal natural evolution being unlikely.Unfortunately I don't have the deep knowledge to judge one way or the other, except to point out at least some virologists think Covid 19 has the hallmarks of evolving naturally.
I think Wade is wrong on at least two points. There were broadly concurrent December outbreaks in Wuhan and Guangdong. Wherever Covid did start it wasn't with either of those outbreaks - it had been going for at least a month by then. Also he points out as a kind of dog that doesn't bark, no specific origin has been found for Covid, unlike SARS where they identified the origin in 4 months. I think it actually took many years and some luck to identify a bat cave in Yunnan province, a long distance from Guangdong, the documented first location of SARS - distance being another of his objections to a natural evolution of Covid 19. Incidentally no origin has been found for Ebola.
There is basically zero proper evidence for the Wet Market theory, they've tried and tried, but no. Even the WHO admit that
And we now know the first cases were not at the Market indeed it is possible the first cases were IN THE LAB - which, if we could ever confirm it, would be slam dunk
As the other guy I linked to says::
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
We cannot be sure. But as things stand the lab leak is now the most plausible hypothesis, and it gets more plausible by the day. Ignoring it - as you want to do? - is nuts
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
I think Sweden did that at some point as an interval act: the Ultimate Eurovision Song "Love Love Peace Peace"
Are there any PBers from Camden Town (Primrose Hill borders) ?
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
No, I never dismissed the lab leak theory. On the initial, now clearly inaccurate, data, the market hypothesis did seem the most reasonable, but as far back as 2015 I warned of the potential culture issues with regards to safety in BSL4 labs (quoted as such in Nature, no less).
I dismissed the design for purpose theory, but not other possibilities, such as accidental release or even the virus evolving in the lab. Indeed, back in April last year, I wrote a risk management scenario for use in lab training on the possibility of unintended evolution of the virus through propagation in human lung epithelial cells.
There are multiple instances of me saying similar to the NYT, WP and NPR, but I can't be bothered to find them. I have also consistently pointed out Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest and how absurd it was that he was on the WHO team.
The key attributes of a conspiracy theory: 1. Specificity 2. Plausibility 3. Undeniability 4. No real evidence for the theory in preference to other more usual explanations
The Lab Leak theory meets all four criteria. The assertion is highly specific, not only identifying the institute but suggesting a particular employee of it being responsible. A lab accidentally releasing a virus into the wild is very plausible, more so than associates of Prince Charles murdering Diana. The data isn't there to definitively prove a specific alternative explanation. From what I have seen at least, the Lab Leak is nothing more than associating the coincidence of a virology institute known to be researching similar viruses being in the neighbourhood of an early outbreak.
New viruses are regrettably common events. The likeliest explanation is that Covid 19 originated in the same way as all the others do. But that seems a feeble riposte. The theory will endure.
There is ample evidence. Try reading, rather than asserting. Start with that Bulletin essay. It is very powerful
This isn't as good but it is interesting, because it comes from an esteemed journalist who was a full on Natural Origins Wet Marketeer, and now he admits to serious doubts
Several crucial paragraphs. The genetic stuff:
'Nick Wade [author of the Bulletin article] quoted David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize for his work with viruses, as saying the specific amino acid sequences in the cleavage site made “a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin.” '
And then there's the biosafety angle:
"I spoke about Nick’s article last week with Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, the renowned Columbia University virus hunter who was one of the five co-authors on the seminal “proximal origin” paper.
"He favored a natural origin theory, he said, in part because he had assumed that all the Wuhan Institute’s 2019 work with SARS-like viruses had been done in its top-level BSL-4 lab, which was cleared to operate in 2017. (State Department cables from 2018 raised questions about how well-run the lab was.)
"But later he learned of studies with Dr. Shi’s name on them showing that work he considers dangerous had been done in level BSL-2 labs, which he considers highly porous to leaks, not just in 2016, but in 2020. “That’s screwed up,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”"
And it turns out the "bat woman" at the lab has been lying about her research:
"Dr. Shi herself later told Scientific American that, when news of the new virus erupted, her first fear was that it had come from her institute. She did not sleep for days, she said, until she had finished checking her lab’s logs and assured herself that it had not.
"Since then, though, more has come to light about the work done by Dr. Shi’s teams. The most startling bit of information was that, rather than “finding” RaTG13 in her freezers in February, Dr. Shi had worked with it since at least 2016, but under a different name, RaBtCoV/4991.
Of all the hypotheses, It Came From The Lab has the best evidence, the most logic, and triumphs over Occam's Razor. The other's don't
As he says:
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
I read the Nicholas Wade article, which is long. Part of it deconstructs evidence against the Lab Leak theory. It is really saying no-one has proved the negative for the theory, which we know and was my conspiracy theories point 3. Part of it draws attention to coincidences, which is restating the theory and isn't evidence as such.
It gets more interesting where he constructs a case for normal natural evolution being unlikely.Unfortunately I don't have the deep knowledge to judge one way or the other, except to point out at least some virologists think Covid 19 has the hallmarks of evolving naturally.
I think Wade is wrong on at least two points. There were broadly concurrent December outbreaks in Wuhan and Guangdong. Wherever Covid did start it wasn't with either of those outbreaks - it had been going for at least a month by then. Also he points out as a kind of dog that doesn't bark, no specific origin has been found for Covid, unlike SARS where they identified the origin in 4 months. I think it actually took many years and some luck to identify a bat cave in Yunnan province, a long distance from Guangdong, the documented first location of SARS - distance being another of his objections to a natural evolution of Covid 19. Incidentally no origin has been found for Ebola.
There is basically zero proper evidence for the Wet Market theory, they've tried and tried, but no. Even the WHO admit that
And we now know the first cases were not at the Market indeed it is possible the first cases were IN THE LAB - which, if we could ever confirm it, would be slam dunk
As the other guy I linked to says::
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
We cannot be sure. But as things stand the lab leak is now the most plausible hypothesis, and it gets more plausible by the day. Ignoring it - as you want to do? - is nuts
Are there any PBers from Camden Town (Primrose Hill borders) ?
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
Starmer is right, even if the optics are horrible. There's a new fashion for going up Primrose Hill at night, and turning it into a giant rave. I noticed this at the beginning of lockdown 1: the first signs. Kids, music, beer, spliff. It was innocent fun then
But lately it's got menacing and loud - brawls, knives, gangs, drugs, and they trash Primrose Hill on the way home at 3am. The council has no choice but to fence it, until they can think of a better solution
Sadly, I reckon they will end up closing it at night, with permanent gates, as they close Regent's Park
Bit of a disappointing match for Leicester today, but good to be at a stadium in person . It all went wrong with a critical injury again, in defence this time to Wes Fofana.
Weird to have no away fans to taunt, so strangely silent when Spurs scored. I hope they enjoy the European Conference League 🤣
Nice to see the FA Cup paraded though, and out Chaiman chucked me a t short in his post match walk around.
Backed JV first goal and brace, which was nice...
Backed Neymar tonight and he missed a pen
Whilst you were winning and so were Arsenal, I had a horrible feeling of us being seen to be celebrating finishing above Spurs & qualifying for the Europa Conference. So it’s nice to miss out on that.
I think Arsenal will be pretty good next season. We were 2nd in the league over the second half of the campaign, and Pepe, Saka, Smith-Rowe and Martinelli look the real deal.
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
That is a great suggestion, actually.
But on the last line, I suppose the consolation for every UK entry from 2003 onwards is that however shit they are, they cannot possibly be worse than Jemini.
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
Not a bad idea. Would probably do better with the juries (who seem to favour X Factor type songs like Malta and Bulgaria) than the popular vote, who don't seem to like non-white singers, whether British, Swedish, Dutch or Israeli.
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
I’d love to see it and it could produce a great spectacle. But it wouldn’t win would it, given the “traditional” views of many of the voters from those 39 countries.
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
I’d love to see it and it could produce a great spectacle. But it wouldn’t win would it, given the “traditional” views of many of the voters from those 39 countries.
Only six people on stage is one of the rules.
With a significant Indian diaspora in other European countries now, it might not be a bad go.
At least it would be fun. A camp Bhangra act would probably be top half.
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
I’d love to see it and it could produce a great spectacle. But it wouldn’t win would it, given the “traditional” views of many of the voters from those 39 countries.
Only six people on stage is one of the rules.
With a significant Indian diaspora in other European countries now, it might not be a bad go.
At least it would be fun. A camp Bhangra act would probably be top half.
Apparently there isn't a massive Indian diaspora in Europe, after us Italy are in second with 140k.
Are there any PBers from Camden Town (Primrose Hill borders) ?
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
Starmer is right, even if the optics are horrible. There's a new fashion for going up Primrose Hill at night, and turning it into a giant rave. I noticed this at the beginning of lockdown 1: the first signs. Kids, music, beer, spliff. It was innocent fun then
But lately it's got menacing and loud - brawls, knives, gangs, drugs, and they trash Primrose Hill on the way home at 3am. The council has no choice but to fence it, until they can think of a better solution
Sadly, I reckon they will end up closing it at night, with permanent gates, as they close Regent's Park
An alternative solution might be to open the Night clubs, and other evening entertainment, so that people can go there?
No, I never dismissed the lab leak theory. On the initial, now clearly inaccurate, data, the market hypothesis did seem the most reasonable, but as far back as 2015 I warned of the potential culture issues with regards to safety in BSL4 labs (quoted as such in Nature, no less).
I dismissed the design for purpose theory, but not other possibilities, such as accidental release or even the virus evolving in the lab. Indeed, back in April last year, I wrote a risk management scenario for use in lab training on the possibility of unintended evolution of the virus through propagation in human lung epithelial cells.
There are multiple instances of me saying similar to the NYT, WP and NPR, but I can't be bothered to find them. I have also consistently pointed out Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest and how absurd it was that he was on the WHO team.
The key attributes of a conspiracy theory: 1. Specificity 2. Plausibility 3. Undeniability 4. No real evidence for the theory in preference to other more usual explanations
The Lab Leak theory meets all four criteria. The assertion is highly specific, not only identifying the institute but suggesting a particular employee of it being responsible. A lab accidentally releasing a virus into the wild is very plausible, more so than associates of Prince Charles murdering Diana. The data isn't there to definitively prove a specific alternative explanation. From what I have seen at least, the Lab Leak is nothing more than associating the coincidence of a virology institute known to be researching similar viruses being in the neighbourhood of an early outbreak.
New viruses are regrettably common events. The likeliest explanation is that Covid 19 originated in the same way as all the others do. But that seems a feeble riposte. The theory will endure.
There is ample evidence. Try reading, rather than asserting. Start with that Bulletin essay. It is very powerful
This isn't as good but it is interesting, because it comes from an esteemed journalist who was a full on Natural Origins Wet Marketeer, and now he admits to serious doubts
Several crucial paragraphs. The genetic stuff:
'Nick Wade [author of the Bulletin article] quoted David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize for his work with viruses, as saying the specific amino acid sequences in the cleavage site made “a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin.” '
And then there's the biosafety angle:
"I spoke about Nick’s article last week with Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, the renowned Columbia University virus hunter who was one of the five co-authors on the seminal “proximal origin” paper.
"He favored a natural origin theory, he said, in part because he had assumed that all the Wuhan Institute’s 2019 work with SARS-like viruses had been done in its top-level BSL-4 lab, which was cleared to operate in 2017. (State Department cables from 2018 raised questions about how well-run the lab was.)
"But later he learned of studies with Dr. Shi’s name on them showing that work he considers dangerous had been done in level BSL-2 labs, which he considers highly porous to leaks, not just in 2016, but in 2020. “That’s screwed up,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”"
And it turns out the "bat woman" at the lab has been lying about her research:
"Dr. Shi herself later told Scientific American that, when news of the new virus erupted, her first fear was that it had come from her institute. She did not sleep for days, she said, until she had finished checking her lab’s logs and assured herself that it had not.
"Since then, though, more has come to light about the work done by Dr. Shi’s teams. The most startling bit of information was that, rather than “finding” RaTG13 in her freezers in February, Dr. Shi had worked with it since at least 2016, but under a different name, RaBtCoV/4991.
Of all the hypotheses, It Came From The Lab has the best evidence, the most logic, and triumphs over Occam's Razor. The other's don't
As he says:
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
I read the Nicholas Wade article, which is long. Part of it deconstructs evidence against the Lab Leak theory. It is really saying no-one has proved the negative for the theory, which we know and was my conspiracy theories point 3. Part of it draws attention to coincidences, which is restating the theory and isn't evidence as such.
It gets more interesting where he constructs a case for normal natural evolution being unlikely.Unfortunately I don't have the deep knowledge to judge one way or the other, except to point out at least some virologists think Covid 19 has the hallmarks of evolving naturally.
I think Wade is wrong on at least two points. There were broadly concurrent December outbreaks in Wuhan and Guangdong. Wherever Covid did start it wasn't with either of those outbreaks - it had been going for at least a month by then. Also he points out as a kind of dog that doesn't bark, no specific origin has been found for Covid, unlike SARS where they identified the origin in 4 months. I think it actually took many years and some luck to identify a bat cave in Yunnan province, a long distance from Guangdong, the documented first location of SARS - distance being another of his objections to a natural evolution of Covid 19. Incidentally no origin has been found for Ebola.
There is basically zero proper evidence for the Wet Market theory, they've tried and tried, but no. Even the WHO admit that
And we now know the first cases were not at the Market indeed it is possible the first cases were IN THE LAB - which, if we could ever confirm it, would be slam dunk
As the other guy I linked to says::
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
We cannot be sure. But as things stand the lab leak is now the most plausible hypothesis, and it gets more plausible by the day. Ignoring it - as you want to do? - is nuts
Not Italy then?
Dunno. But then I didn't know this, either:
VIRUS MYSTERY
Photo emerges ‘showing patient zero at Wuhan lab’ three years after bosses claimed she left and never to returned
At the time, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) denied online reports the first person to contract the killer virus was based at the top secret site and insisted Huang had left five years earlier never to return.
Now a photo has been published on Twitter which appears to pour cold water on those claims.
It purports to show Huang pictured standing at the back of large group of fellow researchers from the Lab of Diagnostic Microbiology.
The photo could be doctored, of course, or The Sun could be making it up, but at some point the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak will grow so mighty, we just have to accept it
Are there any PBers from Camden Town (Primrose Hill borders) ?
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
Starmer is right, even if the optics are horrible. There's a new fashion for going up Primrose Hill at night, and turning it into a giant rave. I noticed this at the beginning of lockdown 1: the first signs. Kids, music, beer, spliff. It was innocent fun then
But lately it's got menacing and loud - brawls, knives, gangs, drugs, and they trash Primrose Hill on the way home at 3am. The council has no choice but to fence it, until they can think of a better solution
Sadly, I reckon they will end up closing it at night, with permanent gates, as they close Regent's Park
So what happens when they move to another green space nearby - Hampstead Heath, say. Or any of the other green spaces in London? Are they too going to be fenced off?
Maybe dealing with the crime might be a better solution?
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
I’d love to see it and it could produce a great spectacle. But it wouldn’t win would it, given the “traditional” views of many of the voters from those 39 countries.
How do you explain the Israeli transvestite winner?
There are probably several ways that the UK could be competitive (or, setting a low bar, not an embarrassment) if the BBC allowed it.
As a starter they need a decent song, or if not a particularly decent song, and least a song that doesn't combine not being very good with utter blandness.
To actually have a chance of winning (given the political dimension of the voting) would probably require something a bit more, let's say, 'controversial'. You could go down the Israeli route - pick something that has the UK political/Govt establishment up in arms, being denounced by ministers etc etc etc.
Alternatively there is the suggestion put forward by MaxPB(?) last night - do something that embraces the UK perception that everybody hates us, and glorifies in it.
But the BBC don't want to go down that route. It's just not worth the hassle to them. So they'll carry on putting up bland performers that give nobody any particular reason to vote for them.
Are there any PBers from Camden Town (Primrose Hill borders) ?
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
Starmer is right, even if the optics are horrible. There's a new fashion for going up Primrose Hill at night, and turning it into a giant rave. I noticed this at the beginning of lockdown 1: the first signs. Kids, music, beer, spliff. It was innocent fun then
But lately it's got menacing and loud - brawls, knives, gangs, drugs, and they trash Primrose Hill on the way home at 3am. The council has no choice but to fence it, until they can think of a better solution
Sadly, I reckon they will end up closing it at night, with permanent gates, as they close Regent's Park
So what happens when they move to another green space nearby - Hampstead Heath, say. Or any of the other green spaces in London? Are they too going to be fenced off?
Maybe dealing with the crime might be a better solution?
Well, yeah. Or open the clubs as others have said
But right now Primrose Hill residents need immediate respite from the chaos. Fencing is the only way (and I hate it)
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
I’d love to see it and it could produce a great spectacle. But it wouldn’t win would it, given the “traditional” views of many of the voters from those 39 countries.
Only six people on stage is one of the rules.
With a significant Indian diaspora in other European countries now, it might not be a bad go.
At least it would be fun. A camp Bhangra act would probably be top half.
Apparently there isn't a massive Indian diaspora in Europe, after us Italy are in second with 140k.
I don't know if targeting the Diaspora vote in the Eurovision contest is equivalent to 'gerrymandering' in the US congress, but assuming there are no ethical concerns. getting a polish/Romanian group with a song about expat life, perhaps largely sung in Polish, perhaps with a few light hatred jabs at the host country, in this case the UK. could be a good stratage, I think?
The "Yellow Sam" coup of 1975 is a fascinating tale.
Having read about that this afternoon, I'm amazed it was legal. Liked the detail that the bookies paid out in small bank notes.
I read his book ‘Giving a little back’ about 20 years ago. Magic Combination’s win at the 99 Galway festival was my fav ever winner - so lairy, JP Spencer walked the horse over the line
My serious suggestion for our next Eurovision entry: Bhangra.
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
I’d love to see it and it could produce a great spectacle. But it wouldn’t win would it, given the “traditional” views of many of the voters from those 39 countries.
Only six people on stage is one of the rules.
With a significant Indian diaspora in other European countries now, it might not be a bad go.
At least it would be fun. A camp Bhangra act would probably be top half.
Apparently there isn't a massive Indian diaspora in Europe, after us Italy are in second with 140k.
Or so they claim, to justify shutting the UK off because of the Indian variant...
Are there any PBers from Camden Town (Primrose Hill borders) ?
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
Starmer is right, even if the optics are horrible. There's a new fashion for going up Primrose Hill at night, and turning it into a giant rave. I noticed this at the beginning of lockdown 1: the first signs. Kids, music, beer, spliff. It was innocent fun then
But lately it's got menacing and loud - brawls, knives, gangs, drugs, and they trash Primrose Hill on the way home at 3am. The council has no choice but to fence it, until they can think of a better solution
Sadly, I reckon they will end up closing it at night, with permanent gates, as they close Regent's Park
So what happens when they move to another green space nearby - Hampstead Heath, say. Or any of the other green spaces in London? Are they too going to be fenced off?
Maybe dealing with the crime might be a better solution?
Well, yeah. Or open the clubs as others have said
But right now Primrose Hill residents need immediate respite from the chaos. Fencing is the only way (and I hate it)
Immediate respite would be sending the police there every evening from tonight onwards to arrest the troublemakers and charge them.
Too much to expect the police to do their job, I suppose.
Comments
What a terrible thread.
'Its OK that this person said "Hitler was right", they said that before we hired them' is a rather bizarre train of logic. Personally it'd make me wonder why they were hired after they'd said it, not the other way around.
All were states won by Trump so if the Democrats won the legislature too they could also in theory appoint the state's electors pre election
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1396541124186083328?s=20
The biggest significance of the Cummings issue is that Johnson thought enough of him to make him Chief of Staff, and leave him in charge. It shows a shocking lack of judgement. At least Carrie Antoinette saw through him, I suppose.
That’s four reasons you can’t possibly be him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair
*Ignoring the current devotion to The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
The whole point here is that GOP controlled state legislatures are trying to change their state laws to make this a theoretical possibility.
There are no Democratic state legislatures trying to do this. So quite why you think this is remotely relevant i've no idea. And i'm not even sure how you've managed to come to the conclusion that the opposite could happen in reverse in West Virginia, Louisiana or Alaska, even if the Democrats wanted to. They don't control the state legislature in any of them. And aren't remotely likely to in future.
That really would be a turn up...
You are right though, you have to look to the man who appointed him as being responsible.
https://youtu.be/aMgW54HBOS0
House!
What we're blooming good at is simplifying problems to make them solvable. In the material world, you can often do that without doing too much harm to the problem.
It's like the old gag about the physicist who develops an equation to predict the outcomes of horse races (you know, one spherical horse moving in empty space). For most problems of government, cutting of inconvenient details doesn't work. Arguably, wars and pandemics are two of the few exceptions.
??
Biology is really chemistry, chemistry is really physics, physics is really maths, and maths is really hard.
I'd gone a certain distance into the unknowable, and that was it.
It gets more interesting where he constructs a case for normal natural evolution being unlikely.Unfortunately I don't have the deep knowledge to judge one way or the other, except to point out at least some virologists think Covid 19 has the hallmarks of evolving naturally.
I think Wade is wrong on at least two points. There were broadly concurrent December outbreaks in Wuhan and Guangdong. Wherever Covid did start it wasn't with either of those outbreaks - it had been going for at least a month by then. Also he points out as a kind of dog that doesn't bark, no specific origin has been found for Covid, unlike SARS where they identified the origin in 4 months. I think it actually took many years and some luck to identify a bat cave in Yunnan province, a long distance from Guangdong, the documented first location of SARS - distance being another of his objections to a natural evolution of Covid 19. Incidentally no origin has been found for Ebola.
Maybe we just entered a lame song.
I remember graphs illustrating a plan of a spring wave and an autumn wave, both within hospital capacity.
Which is what we ended up with.
The risk was said to be minimal spring infections followed by an enormous autumn-winter wave - which is what Eastern Europe was hammered by.
Right now why would they enter?
An X Factor semi finalist clone would be chosen anyway.
Weird to have no away fans to taunt, so strangely silent when Spurs scored. I hope they enjoy the European Conference League 🤣
Nice to see the FA Cup paraded though, and out Chaiman chucked me a t short in his post match walk around.
This is one of the US Navy pilots who saw the Tic Tac, debating with the world's leading Debunker - Britain's very own Mick Best (yay! Go Britain!)
https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1396541508799533057?s=20
FWIW I am tending to a tediously complex but mundane conclusion. *Some* people in the US miltary and CIA etc really DO believe there is Something Out There (very probably wrongly, but not definitely), and they are being used by other Americans (higher up?) to play psy-ops on the Chinese and Russians, to freak them out and make them wary of potential US tech
I was merely suggesting how the GOP had got themselves into their current state within the limits of my understanding and mindset.
The behaviour of the GOP beyond that level is rather beyond my understanding and mindset.
The fact that the songs we put up are usually rubbish doesn't help.
I assume that the idea behind the ENO was an attempt to open up opera to the masses (which in itself supports the idea as a working hypothesis - and you indeed acknowledge that it made sense). Maybe "the masses" just don't really like opera that much, and that is what explains why it isn't/wasn't more successful...
One might expect that the leader of the opposition would have more to do than involve himself in a local council dispute over park gates. But to the shock of some locals, Sir Keir Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, has personally pushed for the erection of nine-foot tall aluminium barriers across Primrose Hill in north London.
Effectively, this means locking off London’s only permanently open royal park from the public on weekend evenings and maintaining its exclusivity for wealthy residents.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/23/anger-as-starmer-intervenes-to-back-closures-at-popular-primrose-hill
And we now know the first cases were not at the Market indeed it is possible the first cases were IN THE LAB - which, if we could ever confirm it, would be slam dunk
As the other guy I linked to says::
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
We cannot be sure. But as things stand the lab leak is now the most plausible hypothesis, and it gets more plausible by the day. Ignoring it - as you want to do? - is nuts
https://twitter.com/jackwhitehall/status/1396198540104421380?s=19
Sing it in Punjabi, a couple of guys banging away on dhols and a dozen folk in traditional outfits dancing.
Would be bloody great.
Starmer is right, even if the optics are horrible. There's a new fashion for going up Primrose Hill at night, and turning it into a giant rave. I noticed this at the beginning of lockdown 1: the first signs. Kids, music, beer, spliff. It was innocent fun then
But lately it's got menacing and loud - brawls, knives, gangs, drugs, and they trash Primrose Hill on the way home at 3am. The council has no choice but to fence it, until they can think of a better solution
Sadly, I reckon they will end up closing it at night, with permanent gates, as they close Regent's Park
Backed Neymar tonight and he missed a pen
Whilst you were winning and so were Arsenal, I had a horrible feeling of us being seen to be celebrating finishing above Spurs & qualifying for the Europa Conference. So it’s nice to miss out on that.
I think Arsenal will be pretty good next season. We were 2nd in the league over the second half of the campaign, and Pepe, Saka, Smith-Rowe and Martinelli look the real deal.
https://twitter.com/BillBailey/status/1396385663768006659
https://youtu.be/K4uFRiaIOxc
But on the last line, I suppose the consolation for every UK entry from 2003 onwards is that however shit they are, they cannot possibly be worse than Jemini.
Edit - fouled up the quotes. My apologies.
Who was the last non white winner?
With a significant Indian diaspora in other European countries now, it might not be a bad go.
At least it would be fun. A camp Bhangra act would probably be top half.
https://twitter.com/raviharrow/status/1379553879923253248?s=21
The "Yellow Sam" coup of 1975 is a fascinating tale.
VIRUS MYSTERY
Photo emerges ‘showing patient zero at Wuhan lab’ three years after bosses claimed she left and never to returned
At the time, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) denied online reports the first person to contract the killer virus was based at the top secret site and insisted Huang had left five years earlier never to return.
Now a photo has been published on Twitter which appears to pour cold water on those claims.
It purports to show Huang pictured standing at the back of large group of fellow researchers from the Lab of Diagnostic Microbiology.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13777681/photo-emerges-patient-zero-wuhan-lab-coronavirus/
The photo could be doctored, of course, or The Sun could be making it up, but at some point the circumstantial evidence for the lab leak will grow so mighty, we just have to accept it
But ask FF43, he knows better. He knows it came from Not the Lab. Definitely.
IT CAME FROM THE FUCKING LAB
Maybe dealing with the crime might be a better solution?
There are probably several ways that the UK could be competitive (or, setting a low bar, not an embarrassment) if the BBC allowed it.
As a starter they need a decent song, or if not a particularly decent song, and least a song that doesn't combine not being very good with utter blandness.
To actually have a chance of winning (given the political dimension of the voting) would probably require something a bit more, let's say, 'controversial'. You could go down the Israeli route - pick something that has the UK political/Govt establishment up in arms, being denounced by ministers etc etc etc.
Alternatively there is the suggestion put forward by MaxPB(?) last night - do something that embraces the UK perception that everybody hates us, and glorifies in it.
But the BBC don't want to go down that route. It's just not worth the hassle to them. So they'll carry on putting up bland performers that give nobody any particular reason to vote for them.
But right now Primrose Hill residents need immediate respite from the chaos. Fencing is the only way (and I hate it)
Too much to expect the police to do their job, I suppose.