politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunil’s by-election analysis: Which party’s has done best a

FPT:

malcolmg said:

Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.

This is my first piece on PB, so muchos thanks to Mike for putting it up!

Regarding turnouts, they have indeed fluctuated wildly, dropping 35% on GE2010 in Cardiff South but only 13% in Oldham East.

The exact figures are as follows:

	      T/O@2010  @by-election      drop in turnout
Wythenshawe	 54.3 	    28.2 	           26.1 
South Shields	 57.7 	    39.3 	           18.4 
Eastleigh	 69.3 	    52.8 	           16.5 
Croydon North	 60.6 	    26.5 	           34.1 
Middlesbrough	 51.4 	     25.9 	           25.5 
Rotherham	 59.0 	     33.6 	           25.4 
Cardiff South	 60.2 	     25.4                 34.8 
Corby	          69.2 	     44.8 	         24.4 
Manchester Cen.	 46.7 	     18.2 	          28.5 
Bradford West	 64.9 	     50.0 	          14.9 
Feltham & Heston 59.9 	     28.8 	          31.1 
Inverclyde	 63.4 	    45.4 	         18.0 
Leicester South	 61.1 	    45.0 	         16.1 
Barnsley Cen.    56.5 	   36.5 	         20.0 
Oldham East	 61.2 	    48.0 	         13.2 

Sunil_Prasannan said:

This is my first piece on PB, so muchos thanks to Mike for putting it up!

Regarding turnouts, they have indeed fluctuated wildly, dropping 35% on GE2010 in Cardiff South but only 13% in Oldham East.

The exact figures are as follows:

	      T/O@2010  @by-election      drop in turnout
Wythenshawe	 54.3 	    28.2 	           26.1 
South Shields	 57.7 	    39.3 	           18.4 
Eastleigh	 69.3 	    52.8 	           16.5 
Croydon North	 60.6 	    26.5 	           34.1 
Middlesbrough	 51.4 	     25.9 	           25.5 
Rotherham	 59.0 	     33.6 	           25.4 
Cardiff South	 60.2 	     25.4                 34.8 
Corby	                69.2 	     44.8 	          24.4 
Manchester Cen.	 46.7 	     18.2 	          28.5 
Bradford West	 64.9 	     50.0 	          14.9 
Feltham & Heston 59.9 	     28.8 	          31.1 
Inverclyde	   63.4 	    45.4 	         18.0 
Leicester South	 61.1 	    45.0 	         16.1 
Barnsley Central	 56.5 	   36.5 	         20.0 
Oldham East	 61.2 	    48.0 	         13.2 

Thanks Sunil, very interesting.

Off-topic:

Yet more problems for Boeing: over 40 787's in production have hairline cracks on their wings.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023076224_787wingcrackxml.html

Still, at least these are not planes that are in service: Airbus has problems with wing cracks in planes in service:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/airbus-group-a-idUSL6N0M35BA20140306

This stuff is hard. We all take flying too much for granted, IMHO.

Does anyone have a definitive number for how many times Labour has spent the bankers bonus tax (whilst arguing for smaller bonuses......)???

Incoherent doesn't even begin to desctibe it.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

This is my first piece on PB, so muchos thanks to Mike for putting it up!

Regarding turnouts, they have indeed fluctuated wildly, dropping 35% on GE2010 in Cardiff South but only 13% in Oldham East.

The exact figures are as follows:

	      T/O@2010  @by-election      drop in turnout
Wythenshawe	 54.3 	    28.2 	           26.1 
South Shields	 57.7 	    39.3 	           18.4 
Eastleigh	 69.3 	    52.8 	           16.5 
Croydon North	 60.6 	    26.5 	           34.1 
Middlesbrough	 51.4 	     25.9 	           25.5 
Rotherham	 59.0 	     33.6 	           25.4 
Cardiff South	 60.2 	     25.4                 34.8 
Corby	          69.2 	     44.8 	         24.4 
Manchester Cen.	 46.7 	     18.2 	          28.5 
Bradford West	 64.9 	     50.0 	          14.9 
Feltham & Heston 59.9 	     28.8 	          31.1 
Inverclyde	 63.4 	    45.4 	         18.0 
Leicester South	 61.1 	    45.0 	         16.1 
Barnsley Cen.    56.5 	   36.5 	         20.0 
Oldham East	 61.2 	    48.0 	         13.2 

Interesting that the only byelections where turnout topped 50% were when there was a non-mainstream party exciting interest. Speaks volumes about how just how little enthusiasm people have for the establishment parties. Even Corby is historically very poor for a Con-Lab marginal.

Floater said:

Does anyone have a definitive number for how many times Labour has spent the bankers bonus tax (whilst arguing for smaller bonuses......)???

Incoherent doesn't even begin to desctibe it.

Edited for inability to look a few posts down the thread ...

(knocks himself around the head with a wet haddock)

What's Gordon Brown been doing since 2010?

"there's another book on the way, called 2025: Shaping a New Future"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26512592

Oh god, help us all !!!

@FrancisUrquhart

'11 times apparently...I lost count after about 5.'

That's got to be a record even by Labour's past standards,great credibility for the GE.

FrancisUrquhart said:

What's Gordon Brown been doing since 2010?

"there's another book on the way, called 2025: Shaping a New Future"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26512592

Oh god, help us all !!!

It amazes me how Gordon Brown can find the time to write a book whilst he's busy toiling away being an MP, standing up for his consituants in the house...

Oh..

Blimey!

Roy Jenkins' male lover Tony Crosland tried to halt his marriage

A new biography, Roy Jenkins: A Well Rounded Life, by John Campbell, reveals how miner’s son Jenkins himself had a homosexual affair with his close friend Crosland who he met at Oxford University

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10687788/Roy-Jenkins-male-lover-Tony-Crosland-tried-to-halt-his-marriage.html

compouter2 said:

I take it by the huge squirreling Populus is getting there was no crossover?

A 4% lead is not particularly interesting.

Sean_F said:

compouter2 said:

I take it by the huge squirreling Populus is getting there was no crossover?

A 4% lead is not particularly interesting.

Good, and long may the uninteresting polls last. As long as there is no crossover all the posts about swingback, crap Ed, Labour bankers tax, roaring economies, returning Lib Dem/Tories are all hot air and pissflaps I.M.H.O.

The Daily Star's crime correspondent, Jerry Lawton, is surely in contempt of court. He is continuing on Twitter to refer to complainants in R v Evans MP as "victims". He should know that that is a matter for the jury, not journalists, to determine!

compouter2 said:

Sean_F said:

compouter2 said:

I take it by the huge squirreling Populus is getting there was no crossover?

A 4% lead is not particularly interesting.

Good, and long may the uninteresting polls last. As long as there is no crossover all the posts about swingback, crap Ed, Labour bankers tax, roaring economies, returning Lib Dem/Tories are all hot air and pissflaps I.M.H.O.

Polling 14 months away from an election rarely matches polling at an election. Thus, discussion about leader ratings, economic prospects etc. makes sense.

Stuart_Dickson said:

I like how the SNP was left out of the by-election analysis. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we were up 15.5 points. Gosh no.

Stuart, there was only one Westminster by-election involving the SNP, Inverclyde. Difficult to extrapolate with just one data-point.

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

malcolmg said:

Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.

You'd have been conflicted as Yvonne (unlike her fellow Respecter Galloway) is an Indy supporter.

TUD, I wonder why the Express did not trumpet the YES/NO numbers in the poll yesterday. Given it was 3 - 1 to NO on who were thugs threatening people , it would suggest the numbers for NO on the referendum did not suit them very well. Pretty pointless having a poll and then hiding it, but probably easy to guess why.

I can't remember there being a vote after an actual debate during the last year where No has won. I guess that's why they're so reluctant to debate, and the Unionist media to report the debates that do take place.

Stuart_Dickson said:

I like how the SNP was left out of the by-election analysis. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we were up 15.5 points. Gosh no.

OK, to follow-up:
Only one by-election of the 15 was contested by the SNP

% of the aggregate vote in the 15 seats in 2010 = 1.0% (6,577 of 647,921)
% of the aggregate vote in the 15 seats at the by-elections = 2.3% (9,280 of 402,404)
therefore, the difference = +1.3%

Danny565 said:

There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

Dave in parliament talking about the response to Russia. Telling them how those scary Europeans are going to delay visa reform, ban arms exports, royals not to visit Sochi! I mean I know Putin has annexed a whole province - but to keep the royals away from the paralympics, well that's surely an over-response. Putin will be very scared now.

Danny565 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.

So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

Brilliant.

Ed Miliband's Bankers Bonuses Pledges

Video showing Ed pledges in his own words...

http://order-order.com/2014/03/10/guy-news-ed-milibands-bankers-bonus-tax-pledges/

Danny565 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.

I agree with you Danny.

Regional government for those English regions which choose it (just as with Scotland and Wales), the rest can be governed as now.

We've never had a proper offer of regional devolution on the table in England. The North East quite rightly rejected Labour's offering in 2004 not least because Whitehall wasn't prepared to devolve any powers downwards. The only powers on offer to the regional assembly were to be taken from local government, so most councils were hostile.

Surely if Scotland votes No we go on as we are now.

Danny565 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.

So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

Brilliant.

My "side"? If there was a northern parliament, I'm actually not convinced Labour would forever dominate it; devolution might well mean some new nothern-centred leftwing party would flourish (even Labour is increasingly being seen as a southern clique).

But yes, in terms of actual policies, obviously I want decisions that impact northerners' lives to actually have majority support among northerners, rather than having policies imposed which we don't vote for. Duh.

That's fine...just don't expect us softie southerners to pay for it...

Theuniondivvie said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

malcolmg said:

Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.

You'd have been conflicted as Yvonne (unlike her fellow Respecter Galloway) is an Indy supporter.

TUD, I wonder why the Express did not trumpet the YES/NO numbers in the poll yesterday. Given it was 3 - 1 to NO on who were thugs threatening people , it would suggest the numbers for NO on the referendum did not suit them very well. Pretty pointless having a poll and then hiding it, but probably easy to guess why.

I can't remember there being a vote after an actual debate during the last year where No has won. I guess that's why they're so reluctant to debate, and the Unionist media to report the debates that do take place.

There was the rather unusual case of Strathallan School, but even if one sets that aside for obvious reasons there was a - by the media - much more trumpeted case of Glasgow Uni some time back. However, the media like to remain rather quieter about the other instances where Yes was much more popular - such as the session at Berwick upon Tweed.

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.

Mancunians and tax-paying businesses based in Manchester will need to look after Manchester first. East Sussex will be OK, of course; but there are plenty of less wealthy parts of the countryside that will not be as well off.

Patrick said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.

I read that Elmbridge Borough (in Surrey and covering Cobham, Weybridge and Esher) pays more income tax than Manchester.

Income tax is not the only tax, of course. But Surrey is another county that would be fine. Head west and north, and general affluence declines.

It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

To whoever posted the link to http://www.pprune.org many, many thanks. The discussion about the fate of the Malaysian airliner is both educated and fascinating.

Patrick said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.

I read that Elmbridge Borough (in Surrey and covering Cobham, Weybridge and Esher) pays more income tax than Manchester.

Quite possibly, Mr. Patrick, but the place of which you speak is in Surrey, not Sussex. A couple of years ago I was chatting at a drinkies do to the Chairman of East Sussex County Council. He made the point that East Sussex had a lower median income than Greater Manchester and, aside from some areas in that city, a higher level of deprivation, yet received far less per capita support from central government (I can't recall the numbers now, but in education the disparity was in the order of £3 per pupil in Manchester for £1 in East Sussex).

Way off-topic:

It seems as though Christian Around Britain has finished his 18-month stroll around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough each night. He is raising money for Help for Heroes.

An amazing achievement.

https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3

@surbiton

'And, that was only the first innings. WE will do it 11 more times, if necessary.

It's a double whammy. "Use" the money and bash the *ankers !

Real grown-up politics.

A stern lecture from aviation expert David Learmount on the causes of the Air France flight 447 crash in 2009. He has said there may be similarities between that accident and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARybu2kHeZ8&amp

Talking of Manchester, for @Bobafett

The reason Manchester doesn't have a Mayor is that, I and other Mancunian residents voted against it in 2012.

I voted against it like many others for the belief that a Manchester Mayor would focus on purely Manchester and not Greater Manchester.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17949390

Oh poop, I just described myself as a Manc(unian)

The shame, the shame.

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

HurstLlama said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.

Mancunians and tax-paying businesses based in Manchester will need to look after Manchester first. East Sussex will be OK, of course; but there are plenty of less wealthy parts of the countryside that will not be as well off.

I think your prejudices may be showing there, Mr. Observer.

I'd love to know what they are!!!

It would be useful if we could see the figures for the 14 by-elections which are counted if one excludes Bradford West as an outlier, and/or if they are sub-divided into the 3 where the Lib Dems had substantial votes and the 12 where they didn't.

antifrank said:

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

I think we get the message that you don't rate countryside living much.

Quite the opposite. I rate it highly. But I don't see why I should pay for other people to enjoy it.

What's the answer, though? I live in a small village, but work in a city. I don't particularly fancy moving to that city.
I woŕk, pay my taxes, contibute to the economy (admittedly, I'm not earning anywhere near as much as you).
It's not even really my choice to live here. I was born and raised around here, all my family live around here, it's sort of a subconscious decision, I suppose.
We can't all live in the metropolis, indeed, I doubt I could afford to live anywhere in the South East. That's not really a choice, is it? We can't all be lawyers, accountants, doctors or politicians, can we?

BobaFett said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Talking of Manchester, for @Bobafett

The reason Manchester doesn't have a Mayor is that, I and other Mancunian residents voted against it in 2012.

I voted against it like many others for the belief that a Manchester Mayor would focus on purely Manchester and not Greater Manchester.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17949390

That was a vote for a (City of) Manchester mayor, not a Gtr Manchester one. I'm talking about someone who governs the whole conurbation, like Boris/Ken.

There isn’t a Greater Manchester Assembly though. IIRC there was once, but it was abolished.

TwistedFireStopper said:

antifrank said:

AndyJS said:

antifrank said:

It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

I think we get the message that you don't rate countryside living much.

Quite the opposite. I rate it highly. But I don't see why I should pay for other people to enjoy it.

What's the answer, though? I live in a small village, but work in a city. I dont particularly fancy moving to that city.
I woŕk, pay my taxes, contibute to the economy (admittedly, I'm not earning anywhere near as much as you).
It's not even really my choice to live here. I was born and raised around here, all my family live around here, it's sort of a subconscious decision, I suppose.
We can't all live in the metropolis, indeed, I doubt I could afford to live anywhere in the South East. That's not really a choice, is it? We can't all be lawyers, accountants, doctors or politicians, can we?

If you have any form of public service at all, there will be one person, or one community, subsidising another person or community.

JohnLoony said:

It would be useful if we could see the figures for the 14 by-elections which are counted if one excludes Bradford West as an outlier, and/or if they are sub-divided into the 3 where the Lib Dems had substantial votes and the 12 where they didn't.

Which is the 3rd Lib Dem strong showing? (OE & Saddle, Eastleigh, and ?)

Lennon said:

JohnLoony said:

It would be useful if we could see the figures for the 14 by-elections which are counted if one excludes Bradford West as an outlier, and/or if they are sub-divided into the 3 where the Lib Dems had substantial votes and the 12 where they didn't.

Which is the 3rd Lib Dem strong showing? (OE & Saddle, Eastleigh, and ?)

I was thinking of Leicester South. The Lib Dem vote went down from 27% to 23% and stayed in 2nd place, without collapsing (like it did in Barnsley Central, for example).

OldKingCole said:

AndyJS said:

A stern lecture from aviation expert David Learmount on the causes of the Air France flight 447 crash in 2009. He has said there may be similarities between that accident and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARybu2kHeZ8&amp

One of the informed posters on the PPrune site has just posted In that
"1979 a Varig Boeing B707 took off from Tokyo Narita to Los Angeles. The cargo aircraft lost radio contact 30 minutes after takeoff.

The remains of the aircraft nor of the crew were never found.
The cause of the incident was concluded as cabin depressurization, which killed the crew.

1979 Boeing 707-323C disappearance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia”

Interesting the cargo in that case included a number of valuable works of art, and IIRC there are some on this plane. Almost certainly co-incidence, of course.

More vanishings than you might expect, including one during the filming for Top Gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances

Nothing the size of a 777, though.

Life_ina_market_town said:

It appears that it was at Bercow's instigation that Evans was reported to the police.

Is Bercow turning out to be a rather good speaker?

BobaFett said:

@TSE

Manchester is the second city IMO. Birmingham nowhere near it.

Depends on your metrics. Birmingham is 2nd city by population. Manchester proper is 6th in terms of city size./