politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Maggie Thatcher 1979 experience: Why leader and “best P

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

An indication that tube drivers aren't actually needed on the automated lines?

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/03/jubilee-line-tube-driver-arrested-for-being-drunk-at-the-controls/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26719641

They're needed because people are thought to be scared to get into trains without a human driver. Even though that's the safe way to travel.

It's also a warning to all those who think that people vote rationally.

Would you fly on a plane without pilots?

I presume you mean human pilots. Indeed I have - and went to sleep, too: it was a redeye from Vancouver to LHR. (There were human pilots on the plane, but they spent time in the passenger cabin...) And in Vancouver I rode the Skytrain, which only has a conductor. But all that was in my drinking days!!

You're talking about an autopilot: there are still pilots (or should have been!) at the controls in case anything went wrong.

One of the smoothest landings I have ever experienced (*) was an automated landing in fog at Singapore. But a failure of Autoland has already cause done fatal crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

But trains are intrinsically easier to automate than either cars or planes, and should become more commonplace with the advent of modern signalling systems.

(*) I don't fly a great deal. The scariest was a landing at Iasi in Romania, which apparently has a short runway.

Mr Jessop, apologies for being a pedant on a first post but..... The accident you cite was not a failure of autoland. It was good old pilot error. The a/c had a known fault with the left hand rad alt which caused the a/t to retard for landing. Basically the a/c decided it was going to land and the crew (there were 3, senior training captain, low hours F/O under training and check pilot on the jump seat) were behind with their final checks and failed to notice.

There was an element of bad luck, but nothing that should have caused the crash and loss of life.

Edited for txt correction

foxinsoxuk said:

If the don't knows break like the rest of the electorate then 60:40 it is.

I think that the concept of momentum is an odd one with polling. This is not a vehicle with mass and velocity. If someone else changes their mind about an issue, then why should I?

The thoery is that for every one who's switched, there will be a couple more who are wavering and will come over in a month or two. The Tories are making the same calculation - they are up from 31ish to 34ish, therefore they will be on 40ish by next year.

Like you I'm not convinced politics always works that way.

TGOHF said:

Toby Young in salient point shock

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100264992/the-conservatives-should-become-the-party-of-beer-bingo-and-lamborghinis/

" try and distill exactly what's so off putting about the finger-wagging puritans of the Left. Never lose an opportunity to emphasise their dourness, their sanctimoniousness, their political correctness .

This is currently territory staked out by Nigel Farage, but the Tories need to reclaim it. (Steve Webb's comment that pensioners should be free to spend their savings on Lamborghinis if they wanted to was a perfect example of this.)

When Miliband unveils his various "vote-winning" policies in the run-up to the next election, the Conservatives need to tease out the puritanical fanaticism that will be lurking just beneath the surface "

Toby projecting his dislike of the liberal elite that he is so clearly a part of onto lots of people who really could not give a toss. "We're just like you, ordinary folk," say Dave and George as they play bingo and drink Guinness having just done their weekly Asda shop. It's a sure fire vote winner!!

JosiasJessop said:

It's the old Boeing versus Airbus control philosophies: Boeing prefers the pilot to be firmly in the loop, Airbus prefers the software to have ultimate control.

JosiasJessop said:

But a failure of Autoland has already cause done fatal crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

On a Boeing 737 taking control authority from the pilot

Tony_M said:

JackW said:

Welcome @Tony_M

Very kind Mr W. Might one enquire as to the state of your ARSE today or would that be impertinent?

Most kind of you to enquire.

Restful after the exertions of yesterday would be a sound prognosis but also mindful of the substantial work ahead in the coming 14 months.

Steve Webb will be remembered for his Lambourghini comment, but is not a Tory.

As the average pension pot is in the tens rather than hundreds of thousands, I suspect more likely to spend on a Honda Civic than a Lambo. That iseven before considering the getting in and out aged 65!

But the point is well made, Miliband and co do have a certain hair shirted puritanism about them. It does rather appeal to folk like me who have a rather Calvinist mindset, that everything worth doing should be painful and difficult.

The appeal of Puritanism may be difficult for some to understand, but it was very dominant in Northern Europe historically. The mindset of fundamentalist Islam is not very different and also proving quite popular. Cavaliers will never understand.

TGOHF said:

Toby Young in salient point shock

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100264992/the-conservatives-should-become-the-party-of-beer-bingo-and-lamborghinis/

" try and distill exactly what's so off putting about the finger-wagging puritans of the Left. Never lose an opportunity to emphasise their dourness, their sanctimoniousness, their political correctness .

This is currently territory staked out by Nigel Farage, but the Tories need to reclaim it. (Steve Webb's comment that pensioners should be free to spend their savings on Lamborghinis if they wanted to was a perfect example of this.)

When Miliband unveils his various "vote-winning" policies in the run-up to the next election, the Conservatives need to tease out the puritanical fanaticism that will be lurking just beneath the surface "

Mr. Dickson, many months to go until the vote. Neither side should be complacent. A flaring up of the eurozone sovereign debt crisis or similar event could have very significant implications.

I do fear that if Yes wins then the ramping up of division by the likes of Salmond will make the immediate bilateral relationship rather less cordial than would otherwise be the case.

Monksfield said:

[earlier ones deleted for space]

People understimate the propensity of the Scottish electorate to ticket split between Scottish and General Elections. The Nats need that propensity to reduce, if they are to win most seats at a GE.

Quite. Hitherto SNP MPs have been swamped - inevitably - by the unionist parties at Westminster, so people tended to vote for the latter, if only to keep the Tories out: not a small factor in UK politics, as PBers comment almost daily.

However, the experience of the current Westminster term also seems important. If people think we are perhaps heading for another hung UK pmt, with a chance that the SNP, or more precisely a group of smaller parties including the SNP, could hold the balance of power, voting SNP becomes more attractive for those inclined that way and those who see others doing so. A decline in the attractiveness of Labour would also contribute to this. Far too early to say whether this is going to happen, but a possibility to bear in mind especially given recent polling.

Perhaps also true for PC?

That is quite independent (no pun intended) ofthe indy referendum result, except insofar as any resulting perceived increase in the SNP vote will contribute to make voting for them more attractive.

Mr. Anorak, you might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

BobaFett said:

JackW said:

Tony_M said:

JackW said:

Welcome @Tony_M

Very kind Mr W. Might one enquire as to the state of your ARSE today or would that be impertinent?

Most kind of you to enquire.

Restful after the exertions of yesterday would be a sound prognosis but also mindful of the substantial work ahead in the coming 14 months.

Do you have any other jokes??

Labour party economic policy.

So far as I can see, Jacks ARSE and McARSE are very regular and consistent. Both have moved very little over the years. I put this down this down to plenty of BRAN* in his diet.

*BRAN: British Regal Aristocratic Nous.

Stuart_Dickson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

Stripping out the "don't knows" from the overnight YouGov Independence Referendum poll gives us :

YES 41.5% .. NO 58.5%

Tick tock ....

' ...if we take the (Yougov) headline numbers at face value, the gap has literally halved over the last seven months, with another six months still to go.'

Tick, and indeed tock.

Trend is only Jack's friend if the trend is to Con. The trend to Yes can be safely ignored in Jack World. Long may that continue.

Tony_M said:

JosiasJessop said:

You're talking about an autopilot: there are still pilots (or should have been!) at the controls in case anything went wrong.

One of the smoothest landings I have ever experienced (*) was an automated landing in fog at Singapore. But a failure of Autoland has already cause done fatal crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

But trains are intrinsically easier to automate than either cars or planes, and should become more commonplace with the advent of modern signalling systems.

(*) I don't fly a great deal. The scariest was a landing at Iasi in Romania, which apparently has a short runway.

Mr Jessop, apologies for being a pedant on a first post but..... The accident you cite was not a failure of autoland. It was good old pilot error. The a/c had a known fault with the left hand rad alt which caused the a/t to retard for landing. Basically the a/c decided it was going to land and the crew (there were 3, senior training captain, low hours F/O under training and check pilot on the jump seat) were behind with their final checks and failed to notice.

There was an element of bad luck, but nothing that should have caused the crash and loss of life.

Edited for txt correction

In my defence, we were talking about removing pilots from planes and having fully automated systems. In this case, the automated system failed, and yet the pilots chose to use it. But the automated system failure was a major causal factor.

The plane would still have crashed if it had no pilots on board.

There's also a question as to whether too many automated systems can create problems for pilots. Not just in information overload, but in the fact they're sitting around not doing much, and are not fully aware of the plane's situation when the trouble starts. And does the usual metric of pilot competence - number of hours in the air - count when they're not doing the majority of the flying?

NickPalmer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

If the don't knows break like the rest of the electorate then 60:40 it is.

I think that the concept of momentum is an odd one with polling. This is not a vehicle with mass and velocity. If someone else changes their mind about an issue, then why should I?

The thoery is that for every one who's switched, there will be a couple more who are wavering and will come over in a month or two. The Tories are making the same calculation - they are up from 31ish to 34ish, therefore they will be on 40ish by next year.

Like you I'm not convinced politics always works that way.

I agree entirely about momentum - it's a metaphor that irritates me as well (though there is something like it in the way that people tend to vote for parties in FPTP only if they are seen as having a decent chance of winning in polls - imagine voting for UKIP if you had not seen the polls over the last year).

However, the expression that has been used by some I've seen elsewhere on the net is 'ratchet effect'. The logic seems to be from the fundamental asymmetry. Indy is new and unfamiliar so the default is to say one will vote for the same old status quo if asked e.g. by a pollster. But when one becomes more familiar with the arguments a proportion of the DKs and even noes go for Yes, and stay there once they have decided. So this gives a tendency for Yes to increase with time, especially as many folk ignore the question till nearer the time.

This is irrespective of all other factors (Mr Osborne, Mr Bowie, Ms Lamont ...) and was surely always going to happen given that asymmetry and the underlying reality that yes and no percentages were of the same order of magnitude and actually much closer, to within a factor of 2x or so (and now clearly much less). It's not like an election where we all know (or think we know) what the Tories and Labour are like, after all.

Whether this is the explanation for the actual trend I don't know, but the pattern we are seeing is exactly what I expected a year and more ago if the ratchet is working. Whether it s enough in conjunction or competition with other factors I don't know.

F1: just rumours, but there is more murmuring Horner could replace Ecclestone. I do hope not.

Stuart_Dickson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Minorly pleasurable Indy Yougov last night, all grist to the trend mill.

John Curtice scathing about the Dambusters:

Nicola Sturgeon ‏@NicolaSturgeon 2 hrs
John Curtice in the Times - 'the no campaign...at risk of becoming an irritating background noise to which nobody listens anymore'

That is a very astute way of putting it. The pathetic BT "Project Fear" effort became "an irritating background noise" sometime last year. You can only cry wolf so many times before everybody stops listening.

The longer they carry on the fewer will listen.

They have a duty to point out the complete lack of credibility in what the SNP is saying. But whether Scottish voters want to hear this is another thing entirely. If they do not - and it is certainly beginning to look that way - it suggests to me that the Union has run its natural course rather than that BT have played it all horribly wrong.

That the Union had "run its natural course" was obvious long ago. Nothing the Unionist parties can do will alter that fact. The only thing they can perhaps affect now is the date of the coming dissolution. It would be better for all concerned if it was sooner rather than later.

I agree. If the Scots want a divorce it should be done as quickly as possible. And if they want one despite the gaping holes in the SNP's economic arguments, then clearly a divorce is the best thing for all concerned.

- "gaping holes in economic arguments"

Err... have you seen Johann Lamont's arithmetic car crash? I've not stopped chuckling yet.

People in glass houses should not chuck stones.

I have no idea what Lamont has said. However, that has no bearing on the complete lack of credibility there is in the economic, financial and monetary arguments for independence put forward by the SNP leadership. As I say, if Scottish voters do not have a problem with those gaping holes it means that they have decided that the Union has run its course.

Anorak said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's the old Boeing versus Airbus control philosophies: Boeing prefers the pilot to be firmly in the loop, Airbus prefers the software to have ultimate control.

JosiasJessop said:

But a failure of Autoland has already cause done fatal crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

On a Boeing 737 taking control authority from the pilot

Yes, it's a matter of degree. :-)

As an example, and AIUI, Airbus planes will not allow the pilot to perform high-g manoeuvres that will cause the plane structural damage - the computers will put the plane into the best possible attitude to fulfil the pilot's wishes without risking damage. Boeing lets the pilot overrule the computer - which may be useful when trying to avoid a mountain at the last minute, where limited damage to the plane is the least worst option.

Both these systems (pilot overruling computer, and computer overruling pilot) can prevent, and worsen, incidents.

Edit: this is useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes_(electronic)

Oh, and I just have to say:

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!

We're going to see Kate's Bush! Ahem. I mean we're going to see Kate Bush!

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!

Not the best seats, but still:

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!

Didn't realise there were two Farage/Clegg debates. First is tonight at 7pm on the BBC News Channel:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26729567

JosiasJessop said:

Anorak said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's the old Boeing versus Airbus control philosophies: Boeing prefers the pilot to be firmly in the loop, Airbus prefers the software to have ultimate control.

JosiasJessop said:

But a failure of Autoland has already cause done fatal crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

On a Boeing 737 taking control authority from the pilot

Yes, it's a matter of degree. :-)

As an example, and AIUI, Airbus planes will not allow the pilot to perform high-g manoeuvres that will cause the plane structural damage - the computers will put the plane into the best possible attitude to fulfil the pilot's wishes without risking damage. Boeing lets the pilot overrule the computer - which may be useful when trying to avoid a mountain at the last minute, where limited damage to the plane is the least worst option.

Both these systems (pilot overruling computer, and computer overruling pilot) can prevent, and worsen, incidents.

Edit: this is useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes_(electronic)

You'd think that the feature would be disabled if there was a ground proximity warning.

JosiasJessop said:

Oh, and I just have to say:

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!

We're going to see Kate's Bush! Ahem. I mean we're going to see Kate Bush!

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!

Not the best seats, but still:

WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!

You may be a little disappointed in some respects:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/kate-bush-warns-everyone-she-now-looks-like-lemmy-2014032184900

In my defence, we were talking about removing pilots from planes and having fully automated systems. In this case, the automated system failed, and yet the pilots chose to use it. But the automated system failure was a major causal factor.

The plane would still have crashed if it had no pilots on board.

There's also a question as to whether too many automated systems can create problems for pilots. Not just in information overload, but in the fact they're sitting around not doing much, and are not fully aware of the plane's situation when the trouble starts. And does the usual metric of pilot competence - number of hours in the air - count when they're not doing the majority of the flying?



I respectfully disagree. In this instance the crew were aware of the fault. Each pilot has a rad alt and there is a pressure altimeter. The r/h rad alt and the PA were ok there was therefore ample serviceable equipment on the a/c for this accident to be prevented. In an automated cockpit I suggest one of the redundant pieces of equipment would have overridden the failed unit. The crew simply took their eye off the ball and let the a/c get to too slow.

On a wider point, the (in my opinion) over automation of the Airbus brand is unsettling. Using QF52 as an example, following an uncontained engine failure the crew were confronted with dozens of failure messages - many contradictory. I wonder how much the system contributed to the stress of the situation for the crew rather than assist?

SouthamObserver said:

That Danish zoo is doing it on purpose now ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26734377

Denmark - Home to what looks like one of the greenest, friendliest most liberal cities in the world full of bikes and cafes, Copenhagen. Terrible place to be a pig or a cow.

Tony_M said:

Mr Jessop, apologies for being a pedant on a first post but.....

Welcome, Tony_M. You'll fit in well - pedants are particularly welcome on PB!

Mr. Pulpstar, 'leading' is debatable. Helmut Marko has great sway, and Vettel ignored a direct team order, and suffered no punishment, last year (the multi-21 issue).

He's getting something of a record of playing politics and attempting to use the media to get rules changed in order to advantage Red Bull, even if it screws over the sport in general. To a greater or lesser extent all dominant teams have done this, but the fuel sensor issue was clearly a decision to play chicken with the FIA. The sensor isn't as great as it should be for technical reasons and all teams agreed before the race to use it and follow FIA guidance because of those reasons. Red Bull decided to ignore a direct instruction from the FIA during the race to suit themselves, and then kicked up a fuss afterwards.

The tyre issue last year is somewhat comparable, although there were also genuine safety concerns. Nevertheless, Red Bull went from contenders to total dominance (9 straight wins for Vettel) after the tyres were changed.

They also, I believe, had the camera mounted in an illegal position, but this has not been deemed serious enough for a penalty.

Horner comes across as a political creature, not a racing one.

Stuart_Dickson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Minorly pleasurable Indy Yougov last night, all grist to the trend mill.

John Curtice scathing about the Dambusters:

Nicola Sturgeon ‏@NicolaSturgeon 2 hrs
John Curtice in the Times - 'the no campaign...at risk of becoming an irritating background noise to which nobody listens anymore'

That is a very astute way of putting it. The pathetic BT "Project Fear" effort became "an irritating background noise" sometime last year. You can only cry wolf so many times before everybody stops listening.

The longer they carry on the fewer will listen.

They have a duty to point out the complete lack of credibility in what the SNP is saying. But whether Scottish voters want to hear this is another thing entirely. If they do not - and it is certainly beginning to look that way - it suggests to me that the Union has run its natural course rather than that BT have played it all horribly wrong.

That the Union had "run its natural course" was obvious long ago. Nothing the Unionist parties can do will alter that fact. The only thing they can perhaps affect now is the date of the coming dissolution. It would be better for all concerned if it was sooner rather than later.

I agree. If the Scots want a divorce it should be done as quickly as possible. And if they want one despite the gaping holes in the SNP's economic arguments, then clearly a divorce is the best thing for all concerned.

- "gaping holes in economic arguments"

Err... have you seen Johann Lamont's arithmetic car crash? I've not stopped chuckling yet.

People in glass houses should not chuck stones.

I have no idea what Lamont has said. However, that has no bearing on the complete lack of credibility there is in the economic, financial and monetary arguments for independence put forward by the SNP leadership. As I say, if Scottish voters do not have a problem with those gaping holes it means that they have decided that the Union has run its course.

Ho ho. A Labourite lecturing others on a "complete lack of credibility in the economic, financial and monetary arguments". You couldn't make it up.

No lecture Stuart. Just a statement of fact. However, I do understand that for a Scottish nationalist such as yourself, the economic, monetary and fiscal arguments are irrelevant. You want an independent Scotland, full stop; thus, for you, whatever happens post-Yes will be better than the way things are now or could ever be within the Union.

Mr. Corporeal, ah, that makes sense. It did say that it would be covered on the BBC News Channel, though.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tony_M said:

Mr Jessop, apologies for being a pedant on a first post but.....

Welcome, Tony_M. You'll fit in well - pedants are particularly welcome on PB!

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate ...

Tony_M said:

I respectfully disagree. In this instance the crew were aware of the fault. Each pilot has a rad alt and there is a pressure altimeter. The r/h rad alt and the PA were ok there was therefore ample serviceable equipment on the a/c for this accident to be prevented. In an automated cockpit I suggest one of the redundant pieces of equipment would have overridden the failed unit. The crew simply took their eye off the ball and let the a/c get to too slow.

On a wider point, the (in my opinion) over automation of the Airbus brand is unsettling. Using QF52 as an example, following an uncontained engine failure the crew were confronted with dozens of failure messages - many contradictory. I wonder how much the system contributed to the stress of the situation for the crew rather than assist?

All good points. But the problem with relying on redundant pieces of equipment is that they can go wrong as well and provide contradictory information. Computers can only act on information, and it might not be able to tell which had failed. GIGO rules.

Hence we could have a situation where the plane thinks it is either 500 feet from the ground, or 100, and not know which to choose. Having a pilot with Mk 1 eyeballs is a good redundant system to have. ;-)

The QF52 point is particularly well made, and I hope Airbus, Boeing and operators will learn from it.

Edit: and welcome to PB!

As someone with knowledge of airlines, any thoughts on flight 570? Does the idea of a plane load of asphixiated passengers and crew flying on autopilot have any possibility?

With the plane seemingly deep under the Southern Ocean we may never know.

Tony_M said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

JackW said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JackW said:

Stripping out the "don't knows" from the overnight YouGov Independence Referendum poll gives us :

YES 41.5% .. NO 58.5%

Tick tock ....

' ...if we take the (Yougov) headline numbers at face value, the gap has literally halved over the last seven months, with another six months still to go.'

Tick, and indeed tock.

Trend is only Jack's friend if the trend is to Con. The trend to Yes can be safely ignored in Jack World. Long may that continue.

Far from ignoring the trend my McARSE noted it on 18 Mar.

However as I indicated to Div if you're happy to be trailing by 17 points then let me share your joy and let it be unbounded.

Dearie, dearie me Jack. You can maybe pull the wool over the eyes of a newbie, but puhrleeese, don't give us yer "17 points" guff.

Hardly a newbie Mr Dickson. Been lurking for years! I go by the old adage though, better to let people think I'm stupid than open my gob and prove it!!

On topic, not only is Ed is crap, by a process of osmosis he's infecting the Labour party.

Does Ed look like a PM in waiting

Does 19, Doesn't 63, DK 17

When the same Q was asked in Sep 2008 of Dave it was

Does 49. Doesn't 34, DK 16

Is the Lab Party ready for government

Ready 26, Not Ready 52, DK 22

When the same Q was asked in Sep 2008 of The Tories it was

Ready 43, Not Ready 36, DK 21.

I'll say it again, The Indy ref is going to be close, only the heir to Kingdom of Idiots thinks No is nailed on to win.

Yes is closing the gender gap, the childcare policy is proving popular, and the gap between those who think an Independent Scotland will be worse off is narrowing.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll say it again, The Indy ref is going to be close, only the heir to Kingdom of Idiots thinks No is nailed on to win.

Yes is closing the gender gap, the childcare policy is proving popular, and the gap between those who think an Independent Scotland will be worse off is narrowing.

This PB Romney is now calling it for Yes! The Union has run its course.

On topic - the timescale of that graph is to be noted - just three weeks. I'm not sure, therefore, that it tells us anything comparable to Ed Miliband's long-term poor ratings.

I find it somewhat hard to believe that people really had changed their views of the relative merits of Callaghan and Thatcher so much in such a short time (especially as they went on to elect Thatcher in the ballot box). It's impossible now to know, but I wonder if the significance of the change was perhaps a sort of valedictory thank you to Callaghan for trying? He was quite a popular figure, and even his political opponents didn't doubt his decency and the sincerity of his attempts to sort out the mess, feeble though they were.

Jonathan said:

JackW said:

Reeves is the only one of that group who has any media profile and frankly she's not exactly a stellar performer.

Part of Labour's problem is their recognized media performers have too much form and the others have no profile.

The difference in the 92/97 years was that Smith, Blair, Brown, Cook and Co had gravitas and a very slick media operation.

Creasey is excellent IMO.

Agree.

Much better than the shrill-voiced stamp licker from the Bank of England.

But she needs to develop bottom.

I am hoping JackW can help.

foxinsoxuk said:

As someone with knowledge of airlines, any thoughts on flight 570? Does the idea of a plane load of asphixiated passengers and crew flying on autopilot have any possibility?

With the plane seemingly deep under the Southern Ocean we may never know.

Morning Dr Fox

Frankly no. Radio 4 had a talking head on yesterday espousing this theory or something similar. He was talking about one of the crew on a suicide mission, locking his co-pilot out then climbing to over FL400 then turning off the air con blah blah blah... If a pilot was going to take a plane down surely he would just put a boot on the column and dive it to the ocean? Quick, easy and no chance of being stopped.

The hypoxia theory doesn't explain loss of transponder etc., Also, the a/c wouldn't change course/alter altitude. It would just continue on its merry way cf Helios 522.

My gut instinct is hijack. The SeanT part of my brain says the a/c is sitting on an island somewhere with the valuable (if there was any) cargo gone, along with the complicit crew. The rational part though suspects a hostile takeover (hence the transponder being switched off so the crew couldn't transmit 7500), with an attempt made to fly to Oz for asylum reasons. Sadly the attempt was botched somewhere off Perth.

Isn't conjecture a wonderful thing....

Very odd article from YouGov about British attitudes towards the Russian oligarchs. Effectively saying there is little public appetite for a freeze on their assests and property. Is that really what their findings show? Let's analyse it.

32% support freezing the assets and property of Russian oligarchs living in Britain. 33% oppose such measures and 35% didn't know. That doesn't suggest little appetite to me. And let's not forget we aren't talking about oligarchs who are necessarily close to Putin. It is ANY Russian oligarch.

32% isn't massive but it's far higher than the % that will vote for Tory or Labour at the next election. Yougov tends to ignore the don't knows from its political polling, so they might as well open all their polls - even the ones with Lab/Tory over 40% with 'there is little public appetite'.

If we exclude the don't knows from the poll:

49% back asset freezes against oligarchs
51% oppose them

Given we are a country in which you are innocent until proven guilty, these are remarkable findings. Indeed I would like to see a poll done that asked people how they felt if said oligarchs were believed to be close to Putin. It would surely show majority approval for freezes amongst those expressing a view. And yet Yougov interprets this as 'little appetite'.

Against specific people, 26% support freezing Abramovich's assests and 36% oppose. That's 42% in favour, 58% against for those expressing an opinion. And that's without knowing whether he is close to Putin. Similar figures for Arsenal owner Usmanov. There's clearly widespread national concern about the oligarchs though perhaps a London based polling firm like Yougov finds it hard to get it's head around this stuff. Why are they trying to defend Abramovich Britain? Do they have a vested interest here?

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/25/little-public-support-oligarch-clampdown/

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll say it again, The Indy ref is going to be close, only the heir to Kingdom of Idiots thinks No is nailed on to win.

Yes is closing the gender gap, the childcare policy is proving popular, and the gap between those who think an Independent Scotland will be worse off is narrowing.

This PB Romney is now calling it for Yes! The Union has run its course.

Given the result last night and the fact Citeh play Arsenal on Saturday night, my Spurs to get a Champs League bet is looking good.

NickPalmer said:

isam said:

Stella Creasy is a perfect example of a leftie in London.

Brought up in Manchester, then Colchester, now buzzes about at the "vibrant diverse " community of Walthamstow, in the way that only someone who wasn't brought up in Walthamstow, hasn't seen friends and family move away to be replaced by waves of immigrants, and doesn't think of it as "home" can.

It's actually an example of quite a typical Brit nowadays. People who grow up in one place and stay there throughout their lives are a minority.

Ishmael_X said:

Show us a post saying "it's crossover in x days". The only people who go on about crossover are wannabe leftie comics, as far as I can see.

There have been quite a few on this site predicting/hoping for crossover in the imminent future, none of which materialised. I'm familiar with the "election campaign will sort it out" theory. Been there, got the T-shirt. It doesn't usually work.

Its not true of many working class and poor people, but those aren't important to Labour politicians anymore are they?

Dr Sox

I thought that an hospital consultant who converses with a receptionist was most unlikely to be rootless.

Or is that just in Holby rather than Leicester City?

foxinsoxuk said:

It is true enough. I have only been in Leicester 20 years so I do not miss what I do not know of the old Leicester.

But what is true of the professional class is much less true of others. A few weeks ago I was talking to one of our receptionists about visiting my brother in London. I could have been talking of outer Monglolia. She had never been there despite it being a little over an hour by train. Those of us who flit around the world do not recognise that most peoples horizons are much closer. The flipside is that they tend to be much more attached to a place than we rootless cosmopolitans.

NickPalmer said:

isam said:

Stella Creasy is a perfect example of a leftie in London.

Brought up in Manchester, then Colchester, now buzzes about at the "vibrant diverse " community of Walthamstow, in the way that only someone who wasn't brought up in Walthamstow, hasn't seen friends and family move away to be replaced by waves of immigrants, and doesn't think of it as "home" can.

It's actually an example of quite a typical Brit nowadays. People who grow up in one place and stay there throughout their lives are a minority.

Ishmael_X said:

Show us a post saying "it's crossover in x days". The only people who go on about crossover are wannabe leftie comics, as far as I can see.

There have been quite a few on this site predicting/hoping for crossover in the imminent future, none of which materialised. I'm familiar with the "election campaign will sort it out" theory. Been there, got the T-shirt. It doesn't usually work.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'll say it again, The Indy ref is going to be close, only the heir to Kingdom of Idiots thinks No is nailed on to win.

Yes is closing the gender gap, the childcare policy is proving popular, and the gap between those who think an Independent Scotland will be worse off is narrowing.

I will say it again , Yes is toast and has been from the start . There has been no closing of the gap , views are entrenched and the only movements you see are MofE and methodology changes from poll to poll and this will remain the case for the next 6 months .
I know you do not like that there is no exciting story to tell about a close race hence the almost complete ignoring of yesterday's TNS-BMRB poll which had the Yes % down 1 , in reality no change other than MofE .

FrankBooth said:

Very odd article from YouGov about British attitudes towards the Russian oligarchs. Effectively saying there is little public appetite for a freeze on their assests and property. Is that really what their findings show? Let's analyse it.

32% support freezing the assets and property of Russian oligarchs living in Britain. 33% oppose such measures and 35% didn't know. That doesn't suggest little appetite to me. And let's not forget we aren't talking about oligarchs who are necessarily close to Putin. It is ANY Russian oligarch.

32% isn't massive but it's far higher than the % that will vote for Tory or Labour at the next election. Yougov tends to ignore the don't knows from its political polling, so they might as well open all their polls - even the ones with Lab/Tory over 40% with 'there is little public appetite'.

If we exclude the don't knows from the poll:

49% back asset freezes against oligarchs
51% oppose them

Given we are a country in which you are innocent until proven guilty, these are remarkable findings. Indeed I would like to see a poll done that asked people how they felt if said oligarchs were believed to be close to Putin. It would surely show majority approval for freezes amongst those expressing a view. And yet Yougov interprets this as 'little appetite'.

Against specific people, 26% support freezing Abramovich's assests and 36% oppose. That's 42% in favour, 58% against for those expressing an opinion. And that's without knowing whether he is close to Putin. Similar figures for Arsenal owner Usmanov. There's clearly widespread national concern about the oligarchs though perhaps a London based polling firm like Yougov finds it hard to get it's head around this stuff. Why are they trying to defend Abramovich Britain? Do they have a vested interest here?

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/25/little-public-support-oligarch-clampdown/

As with a lot of these 'obscure question ' polls the first time many of the respondents will have thought about the question will be when they are asked it in the survey . People who then offer an opinion will mainly do so for the sake of it and not really care either way . You need a very large percentage for action in these kind of surveys to be able to say the GBP want it done

Many pressure groups use polls like this to indicate a massive force to change something when there isn't really. Most people are fussed about very little beyond family and politics that affect them directly

foxinsoxuk said:

It is true enough. I have only been in Leicester 20 years so I do not miss what I do not know of the old Leicester.

But what is true of the professional class is much less true of others. A few weeks ago I was talking to one of our receptionists about visiting my brother in London. I could have been talking of outer Monglolia. She had never been there despite it being a little over an hour by train. Those of us who flit around the world do not recognise that most peoples horizons are much closer. The flipside is that they tend to be much more attached to a place than we rootless cosmopolitans.

NickPalmer said:

isam said:

Stella Creasy is a perfect example of a leftie in London.

Brought up in Manchester, then Colchester, now buzzes about at the "vibrant diverse " community of Walthamstow, in the way that only someone who wasn't brought up in Walthamstow, hasn't seen friends and family move away to be replaced by waves of immigrants, and doesn't think of it as "home" can.

It's actually an example of quite a typical Brit nowadays. People who grow up in one place and stay there throughout their lives are a minority.

Ishmael_X said:

Show us a post saying "it's crossover in x days". The only people who go on about crossover are wannabe leftie comics, as far as I can see.

There have been quite a few on this site predicting/hoping for crossover in the imminent future, none of which materialised. I'm familiar with the "election campaign will sort it out" theory. Been there, got the T-shirt. It doesn't usually work.

I think that's a major problem with PB: there are very few 'ordinary' posters on here. The site veers towards the highly intelligent, better-off and highly-mobile type of person, whatever their political persuasion.

There are exceptions to all of the above, of course. ;-)

Thus we talk about the best restaurants in Nice, ancient wars, the law and all sorts of other highfalutin things.

One idiot even witters endlessly on about HS2 and engineering.

Few of us are the 'common man', if such a thing even exists.