Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).
Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
The beating heart bit slightly depends on prior assumptions. Like whether price or value is the real measure of a human economy. Perhaps the beating heart of the UK economy is where potatoes are grown, cattle reared, and stuff manufactured, and where the practical logistics of this is organised.
Potatoes! Luxury! When I were ' lad, all we 'ad t'eat were short term LIBOR floating rates. You know nothing 'bout the salt of the earth horny-handed sons of toil what keep our children fed.
Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).
Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
The only reason I can think of is that London can be a test tube for policies that could end up being rolled out across the country.
The mayor of London probably has the resources and clout due to London being big and generating loads of cash so that if the mayor wants to do something new it will get a lot of coverage from the media and a lot of study from national parties where another devolved area might not.
It’s like me caring about UK politics - I can’t vote and decisions or the choice of government doesn’t affect me on a day to day basis but decisions made by the UK gov will have affects on where I live - Brexit had a knock on effect but we had no say or vote (which is fair enough) and if a gov came in and changed the relationship with Crown dependencies it would have consequences.
So that’s a long winded boring way of saying it’s worth keeping an eye on.
That sounds like an argument for me paying attention to London politics in general as well as the mayoralty! Which is fair enough. Where do you stay, by the way?
I’m in Jersey most of the time for my sins - never lived in the UK apart from school and university but UK politics has and always will have a big knock-on to my life. Also I love the UK for all its downsides so want it to be successful and happy rather than just not caring as “not my problem” so it’s a weird relationship. Sheltered from the worst of it but wanting the best.
Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).
Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
1: Betting opportunities.
See site's raison d'etre.
I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
Great answer, within the letter of my question, but the spirit of it was in terms of political outcomes. Genuinely wondering how much the mayoralty affects my life.
The Mayor doesn't have much real power, it is more a spokesperson job, hence the success of Citizen Ken or Boris in the job.
And could Corbyn do a worse job with the Met than other mayors have done? A thorough purge may be just the ticket.
There's a chunk of spokesing, but there's also real, day-to-day getting stuff done. Especially transport. It has to be said that Ken did a good job of using the power levers he had and being Mr London.
Since then, Boris was effective at making himself Mr London- less so at the knitting. Sadiq is OK at the day to day stuff, but doesn't project himself as Mayor
It may well be Centrist Dad speaking, but there's certainly room for someone like Rory Stewart. But the change in the voting system means a lot of voters will go for the lesser of two likely evils, rather than a candidate they like. For some, that will be Hall because they hate ULEZ. For others, it will be Khan, because Hall really is that awful. A breakout candidate might break out, but more likely, they'll be squashed like a bug.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
Reminds me of an occasion when my CEO asked for a one-armed lawyer, who wouldn't be able to say '...on the other hand'.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
I'm extremely sceptical when people start talking about "private polling" as if there is some kind of fundamentally more accurate type of special polling that is reserved to political parties and unavailable to the great unwashed.
Parties will do some polling in key seats, and may dig into greater detail on perceptions of them and others than published polls go into. They also canvass so get a broad impression when their vote is a bit softer than published polls suggest. But it simply isn't the case that, for example, Labour high command weren't surprised on the downside in 1992.
Take examples like the US Presidential election in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a seriously well-funded campaign which I am sure was not lacking in data. But their data was clearly as wrong as the published polls, since they wasted the late days of the campaign in states that weren't particularly competitive as it turns out.
The whole "private polling" as a higher grade of polling suggestion is for the birds.
Very good post. It's amusing when people swallow wholesale the idea that secretly parties and pollsters know so much more that is going on than they publicly reveal.
I think it's out of a desire to believe someone, somewhere, is genuinely on top of things and can predict the way things are going. Sure, sometimes they will, but there are enough examples that parties get surprised positively and negatively by events that it cannot be assumed any private info they have is better.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Oh come on. You made a great post and you're now spoiling it by being a bit curmudgeonly
His exact words iirc were 'But I just wonder. I wonder if when people wake up on Friday they are going to be in for a surprise'. This was after he reported evidence he had heard of a last minute swing back to the Conservatives.
Since he was the main ITV political editor at the time, that's as close a prediction as he was probably allowed to make.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
To be fair to the lawyer, that's true on quite a lot of the sorts of legal points that go to court. It's not ludicrous or unhelpful to say, "look, if this goes to court, the outcome is going to be a bit of a toss-up, so you might well want to settle outside court rather than taking your chances".
Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).
Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
1: Betting opportunities.
See site's raison d'etre.
I won a healthy sum betting on Johnson to win in 2008 following Mike's tips at the time.
Great answer, within the letter of my question, but the spirit of it was in terms of political outcomes. Genuinely wondering how much the mayoralty affects my life.
The Mayor doesn't have much real power, it is more a spokesperson job, hence the success of Citizen Ken or Boris in the job.
And could Corbyn do a worse job with the Met than other mayors have done? A thorough purge may be just the ticket.
There's a chunk of spokesing, but there's also real, day-to-day getting stuff done. Especially transport. It has to be said that Ken did a good job of using the power levers he had and being Mr London.
Since then, Boris was effective at making himself Mr London- less so at the knitting. Sadiq is OK at the day to day stuff, but doesn't project himself as Mayor
It may well be Centrist Dad speaking, but there's certainly room for someone like Rory Stewart. But the change in the voting system means a lot of voters will go for the lesser of two likely evils, rather than a candidate they like. For some, that will be Hall because they hate ULEZ. For others, it will be Khan, because Hall really is that awful. A breakout candidate might break out, but more likely, they'll be squashed like a bug.
Of course many voters couldn't tell you whether ULEZ is a horse or a goat, but they know they hate it. Sensible voters will just ignore it and go for the best candidate.
Khan is ok, Corbyn is interesting. Don't know much about Hall but she's getting a terrible Press on here.
Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).
Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
Interesting. What levers does the mayor actually have to affect the London economy? This is getting into the meat of it now, I'm pretty clueless as to the mayor's power.
The most obvious part of the job is running Transport for London. Doing this well, and helping people and things move around an area is generally seen as being fundamental to economic success. Incidentally, it's a major failure of all the Mayors of London to date that there's still no sign of a bridge across the Thames for East London.
There's a lot more in terms of planning and development, acting as an ambassador for the city to attract investment. They have the scale to do some interesting things - as happened under Johnson with cycling infrastructure - but are not so big that it becomes difficult to try something new.
The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.
Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.
Which are....?
Engaging young and marginalised people politically and giving them a voice on the national stage.
I don't really disagree that the London Mayoralty is not a terrible fit for Corbyn - being suitable for those who don't rigidly follow a party line (albeit he rigidly follows his own dogma) and despite some powers is more about presentation than substance, given the past holders - certainly a better fit than being an MP, where he enjoys one aspect but despises the others, and would clearly prefer to be doing rallies.
But I would actually contest that he really engages young people all that much. The British Election Study team for instance argued that there was no 'youthquake' in 2017, and youth turnout was down in 2019. There are caveats to making such estimates of course, it is not easily provable, but it still seems a more solid foundation than the counter, which is that young people on twitter and at rallies seem to like Corbyn, which means...nothing. Very political young people adore(d) him, is that sufficient in itself to mean he engages them meaningfully when they still didn't turn out to vote? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/
And since he is so ostracised from mainstream politics thesedays, for good reason, his voice even amplified by being London mayor is not going to carry much weight on anything national, as opposed to regional.
I think there was significant differential turnout among the young which benefited Labour in 2017. He was extremely popular with apolitical young people at first - remember the rock concert where he turned up unexpectedly and the crowd went so wild that he thought they were shouting abuse - that's when the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" thing started. I had lots of personal evidence of young people saying they didn't usually vote but they would for him. Conversely I met young Tories who really didn't cotton to Theresa May and said they'd sit it out.
Apparently we're up to 72 MPs (at least 4 were on the list but have quit earlier) announcing their attention to stand down at the next GE (data as at 4 Sep), which is 2 less than those who stood down ahead of 2019, with the average since 79 being 87 standing down. So it looks like the average could be easily beat this time, though a whopping 149 stood down in 2010, which would be a challenge to match. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9808/
The other day in response to Mike's suggested comparison to 1992, with which this bears no relation politically, economically, or socially whatsoever, I suggested that it could be more like 1979 than 1997.
I have reasoned that we should be taking June 2017, not December 2019's 'Get Brexit Done' election, as our benchmark. 2017 was a hung parliament. And there is no guarantee that the specific Boris Brexit voters are going to be putting their crosses on any ballot paper box, let alone the Conservative one.
Economically and politically this feels like the dying embers of Callaghan's Labour. The Winter of Discontent. Everything falling apart, including the economy. A PM that was out of touch and aloof. It's arguably worse this time but you get the drift.
People were also unsure at the time about Margaret Thatcher's suitability for the job. Seems unlikely with hindsight but it's true of the time.
Autumn begins on 23 September this year, as this fact sheet from the Met Office says. There is no scientific basis for so-called meteorological autumn, it is simply used to the seasons neatly align with months, for statistical purposes.
I hadn’t realised so many people would be triggered by this, so just read this fact sheet and choose your own seasons!!
Isn't it only private after the event? The polls the parties decide not to release to the newspapers once they see the results?
In Britain, the polling council rules prevent you partially releasing a poll to show the good bits - if you announce anything, the firm has to publish the full set.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
To be fair to the lawyer, that's true on quite a lot of the sorts of legal points that go to court. It's not ludicrous or unhelpful to say, "look, if this goes to court, the outcome is going to be a bit of a toss-up, so you might well want to settle outside court rather than taking your chances".
I may not have been very helpful setting the context - this was a pretty straightforward question about how a minor detail should be factored in by decision makers, it was not a delicate balancing act about the chances of a case.
They clearly just didn't know the answer and so hedged, rather than not being able to provide a definitive answer on a matter which may not be definitive.
The other day in response to Mike's suggested comparison to 1992, with which this bears no relation politically, economically, or socially whatsoever, I suggested that it could be more like 1979 than 1997.
I have reasoned that we should be taking June 2017, not December 2019's 'Get Brexit Done' election, as our benchmark. 2017 was a hung parliament. And there is no guarantee that the specific Boris Brexit voters are going to be putting their crosses on any ballot paper box, let alone the Conservative one.
Economically and politically this feels like the dying embers of Callaghan's Labour. The Winter of Discontent. Everything falling apart, including the economy. A PM that was out of touch and aloof. It's arguably worse this time but you get the drift.
People were also unsure at the time about Margaret Thatcher's suitability for the job. Seems unlikely with hindsight but it's true of the time.
She won with a majority of 44.
No doubt there were TV correspondents on the eve of the 1979 election saying, "Although the Conservatives have a decent polling lead, I wonder if people could be in for a surprise when they wake up on Friday morning."
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).
Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.
Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.
I could hardly think of anyone less suitable for being put in charge of being responsible for the Metropolitan Police. Except maybe Cressida Dick.
Or being the political figurehead and representative for London's Jewish community.
Corbyn was a staggeringly disorganized Leader of the Opposition, he has zero executive skills at all.
He would be a lousy mayor of London, albeit one whose incompetence would have the benefit of showing once and for all how weak the Mayors office and London Assembly are and how badly London local government is structured between Mayor, Assembly and the Boroughs.
However, I also think the "plague on both your houses" is quite marked, and would just note that in the last European elections (also a comparably not particularly important election) the Liberal Democrats were the largest party in London. I do not think the apparently high Lib Dem vote in the latest poll is a bogey, and it could be the platform for something genuinely unexpected.
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
Anecdote alert. My Londoner brother will not be voting for Sadiq Khan this time because of Ulez.
However, he says he will definitely not be voting for Susan Hall either as she's 'repulsive'. Had the tories of chosen a moderate he would have been very tempted.
Make of this what you will.
A plague on both your houses?
Will he even care about the Ulez by May? It will have been in force for months by then
By the time of the mayoral election I think we'll still be in national 'bash the Tories' mood, which will probably undercut even a surprisingy resilient London campaign.
Khan really should step down and allow a new face to run (or rather, a new old face). Ed Balls.
Not Balls.
He's as smart as a whip and as poisonous as a rattlesnake.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
To be fair to the lawyer, that's true on quite a lot of the sorts of legal points that go to court. It's not ludicrous or unhelpful to say, "look, if this goes to court, the outcome is going to be a bit of a toss-up, so you might well want to settle outside court rather than taking your chances".
Though sometimes the rush to avoid making any form of judgment seems a bit more deliberate. A few years ago I was taken to tribunal and I spoke to a lawyer our insurance firm was meant to provide legal cover for and after a minimal discussion of the details he said it was a 50-50 case and the insurance policy only covered 51%+ cases.
Thankfully in this instance a few days later I got some more evidence, a private Whatsapp message sent to a group which someone in the group screenshotted and sent me that showed the polar opposite of the claimants claim that completely demolished the case and showed the claimant knew he was making the claim in bad faith.
Upon seeing this the lawyer immediately took the case. Upon doing so he then completely demolished the claims of the claimant and it ended up going to tribunal and we won comprehensively. The claimant objected to his private message being included in our evidence pack, saying that it was meant to be private, and the tribunal judge said that it was admissible but it didn't matter as the evidence was so comprehensive even if that message wasn't included he'd have lost his case.
But if it wasn't for that evidence, the insurance would never have paid for the case. Despite the fact that evidence ended up being unnecessary once the lawyer put the legwork in.
PS again a lesson for the golden rule to never put anything in writing unless you're prepared for that to be Exhibit A used against you down the line. There's no such thing as "private".
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
But that isn't what Martin Brunson said so I think you and Mr Norfolk are being disingenuous.
He clearly implied that he thought the Conservatives were going to win, and was the only mainstream commentator to say so. I remember sitting there thinking, 'wow' I wasn't expecting that.
The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.
Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.
Which are....?
Engaging young and marginalised people politically and giving them a voice on the national stage.
I don't really disagree that the London Mayoralty is not a terrible fit for Corbyn - being suitable for those who don't rigidly follow a party line (albeit he rigidly follows his own dogma) and despite some powers is more about presentation than substance, given the past holders - certainly a better fit than being an MP, where he enjoys one aspect but despises the others, and would clearly prefer to be doing rallies.
But I would actually contest that he really engages young people all that much. The British Election Study team for instance argued that there was no 'youthquake' in 2017, and youth turnout was down in 2019. There are caveats to making such estimates of course, it is not easily provable, but it still seems a more solid foundation than the counter, which is that young people on twitter and at rallies seem to like Corbyn, which means...nothing. Very political young people adore(d) him, is that sufficient in itself to mean he engages them meaningfully when they still didn't turn out to vote? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/
And since he is so ostracised from mainstream politics thesedays, for good reason, his voice even amplified by being London mayor is not going to carry much weight on anything national, as opposed to regional.
I think there was significant differential turnout among the young which benefited Labour in 2017. He was extremely popular with apolitical young people at first - remember the rock concert where he turned up unexpectedly and the crowd went so wild that he thought they were shouting abuse - that's when the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" thing started. I had lots of personal evidence of young people saying they didn't usually vote but they would for him. Conversely I met young Tories who really didn't cotton to Theresa May and said they'd sit it out.
You think there was significant differential turnout, but your examples are just completely anecdotal, no different to measuring twitter posts and determining Labour must accordingly have won a landslide in 2017 and 2019. Indeed, it's the same point his key supporters make, that loads of people showed up at rallies, therefore he must have been super popular. It's impressive, but did it actually bear fruit? Clearly it didn't among the wider electorate in 2019 at least (there must have been some in 2017 to improve his position), but were the young still showing up then? Since this is not just about was he popular with young people, but whether they were engaged enough to vote - and if turnout was relatively static or even down, then what does that engagement even matter?
I've not read the entire BET study, and as I say they caveat it too because it's hard to estimate these things, but an attempt to study it seems more persuasive than 'remember a crowd went wild?'
It's not like the study was poo pooing Corbyn's popularity, take this point from a response to critique.
Our data suggest that Labour’s share of the vote increased amongst all voters under the age of 70. Additionally, there was a sharp increase in Conservative voting amongst the over 60s. The idea that the result of the 2017 election can be explained simply by looking at the voting behaviour of the youngest group of voters misses most of the story. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/youthquake-a-reply-to-our-critics/#.Xg8gDUegJPZ
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
Reminds me of an occasion when my CEO asked for a one-armed lawyer, who wouldn't be able to say '...on the other hand'.
A related recent thing is that this week there seems to be an army of experts (both structural engineers etc and journalists) on RAAC and the obviousness of the problem and government failure. We should be looking carefully at what they said in the two or three months before the story broke.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
To my unscientific mind there is a little bit of focusing on the froth when it comes to the 'youthquake' idea - people found the sight of young people and rallies very compelling, and so wanted that to be a more significant factor than the more likely explanation - people all over, and in particular older people who vote more, switched to Corbyn in 2017. Then they stayed home or went back to the Tories in 2019.
We also have a bit of a cult of youth at times, where we think things are more interesting if said by young people, see many young green campaigners saying nothing different to older ones. It makes Corbyn more revolutionary if it is a youthquake, rather than just another campaign.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
And that's the point. Seasons are a climate thing. In this case (if you're right), autumn begins "a week from now".
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
To be fair to the lawyer, that's true on quite a lot of the sorts of legal points that go to court. It's not ludicrous or unhelpful to say, "look, if this goes to court, the outcome is going to be a bit of a toss-up, so you might well want to settle outside court rather than taking your chances".
Though sometimes the rush to avoid making any form of judgment seems a bit more deliberate. A few years ago I was taken to tribunal and I spoke to a lawyer our insurance firm was meant to provide legal cover for and after a minimal discussion of the details he said it was a 50-50 case and the insurance policy only covered 51%+ cases.
Thankfully in this instance a few days later I got some more evidence, a private Whatsapp message sent to a group which someone in the group screenshotted and sent me that showed the polar opposite of the claimants claim that completely demolished the case and showed the claimant knew he was making the claim in bad faith.
Upon seeing this the lawyer immediately took the case. Upon doing so he then completely demolished the claims of the claimant and it ended up going to tribunal and we won comprehensively. The claimant objected to his private message being included in our evidence pack, saying that it was meant to be private, and the tribunal judge said that it was admissible but it didn't matter as the evidence was so comprehensive even if that message wasn't included he'd have lost his case.
But if it wasn't for that evidence, the insurance would never have paid for the case. Despite the fact that evidence ended up being unnecessary once the lawyer put the legwork in.
PS again a lesson for the golden rule to never put anything in writing unless you're prepared for that to be Exhibit A used against you down the line. There's no such thing as "private".
Quite a common one for the "don't put it in writing" files is that you get quite a few cases in things like price-fixing investigations where some pompous idiot steps into an email thread to say, "We could get into legal difficulty with all this and shouldn't be putting it in writing, so I suggest we do this entirely by phone in future and keep no notes" thereby basically admitting, in writing, that the participants not only are breaking the law but also know they are.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
Indeed, this week's weather is fantastic summer weather we should enjoy.
But its unseasonably warm and its not remotely normal to get such fantastic weather not in the middle of summer, but early in autumn instead.
This is very unseasonable weather. Which is why its an unprecedented September heatwave.
Or as it was put better by LostPassword at 8:44am this would be great weather to play Test Cricket in, but there's none scheduled, because the expected summer has finished already and this weather in unexpected.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
London forecast for a week today is 22c and sunny. Hardly ‘autumnal’! Bring it on. Sounds heavenly, compared to the disgusting heat we’ve had to endure for a week down here. 33c today. Somebody make it stop.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
To be fair to the lawyer, that's true on quite a lot of the sorts of legal points that go to court. It's not ludicrous or unhelpful to say, "look, if this goes to court, the outcome is going to be a bit of a toss-up, so you might well want to settle outside court rather than taking your chances".
Though sometimes the rush to avoid making any form of judgment seems a bit more deliberate. A few years ago I was taken to tribunal and I spoke to a lawyer our insurance firm was meant to provide legal cover for and after a minimal discussion of the details he said it was a 50-50 case and the insurance policy only covered 51%+ cases.
Thankfully in this instance a few days later I got some more evidence, a private Whatsapp message sent to a group which someone in the group screenshotted and sent me that showed the polar opposite of the claimants claim that completely demolished the case and showed the claimant knew he was making the claim in bad faith.
Upon seeing this the lawyer immediately took the case. Upon doing so he then completely demolished the claims of the claimant and it ended up going to tribunal and we won comprehensively. The claimant objected to his private message being included in our evidence pack, saying that it was meant to be private, and the tribunal judge said that it was admissible but it didn't matter as the evidence was so comprehensive even if that message wasn't included he'd have lost his case.
But if it wasn't for that evidence, the insurance would never have paid for the case. Despite the fact that evidence ended up being unnecessary once the lawyer put the legwork in.
PS again a lesson for the golden rule to never put anything in writing unless you're prepared for that to be Exhibit A used against you down the line. There's no such thing as "private".
That needs a bit of qualification. Like the privilege of the solicitor client relationship.
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
How soon we forget those Thursday evening rock'n'roll sessions with saucepan lids.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
I'm extremely sceptical when people start talking about "private polling" as if there is some kind of fundamentally more accurate type of special polling that is reserved to political parties and unavailable to the great unwashed.
Parties will do some polling in key seats, and may dig into greater detail on perceptions of them and others than published polls go into. They also canvass so get a broad impression when their vote is a bit softer than published polls suggest. But it simply isn't the case that, for example, Labour high command weren't surprised on the downside in 1992.
Take examples like the US Presidential election in 2016. Hillary Clinton had a seriously well-funded campaign which I am sure was not lacking in data. But their data was clearly as wrong as the published polls, since they wasted the late days of the campaign in states that weren't particularly competitive as it turns out.
The whole "private polling" as a higher grade of polling suggestion is for the birds.
Correct. Private polling exists to tell you things the public polls don't, not to second-guess them.
Isn't it only private after the event? The polls the parties decide not to release to the newspapers once they see the results?
Not usually. Private polling will be on much more precise questions, such as policy or personnel, that you may not want released at all.
Of course, the advantage of 'private polling' is that it can mean anything from 'a full survey from a BPC member' to 'our activist spent 5 minutes canvassing Acacia Avenue, to 'I've done a trawl of Twitter', and the journalist has no way to tell the difference.
Anecdote alert. My Londoner brother will not be voting for Sadiq Khan this time because of Ulez.
However, he says he will definitely not be voting for Susan Hall either as she's 'repulsive'. Had the tories of chosen a moderate he would have been very tempted.
Make of this what you will.
A plague on both your houses?
Will he even care about the Ulez by May? It will have been in force for months by then
Some will never forgive or forget. But some won't, or will have invested in adaptations to solve the problem.
Rolling ULEZ back to N/S Circulars (I think that's currently Hall's plan) might not be a vote winner in six months time.
(Another data point, there was huge fury about the Poll Tax when it was introduced. The Labour lead was about 25 percent in April 1990. That had halved by the autumn, even before Maggie went.)
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
Ask not lawyers for advice, for they will say both yes and no.
Serious question here: is there any reason why I should care about the London Mayor contest? Given that I live in the north of Scotland and extremely rarely visit London (not been for about 4 years; have no plans to go any time soon).
Is there some effect on my life other than the waxing and waning political fortunes of this and that person or party that I should care about? The only thing I can think of is the counter-terrorism function, but am I missing something?
London is the beating heart of the British economy. A good Mayor of London would help to make London a better, more successful, city, and this would have a benefit for the rest of the country (in terms of paying the interest on the national debt if nothing else).
The beating heart bit slightly depends on prior assumptions. Like whether price or value is the real measure of a human economy. Perhaps the beating heart of the UK economy is where potatoes are grown, cattle reared, and stuff manufactured, and where the practical logistics of this is organised.
Potatoes! Luxury! When I were ' lad, all we 'ad t'eat were short term LIBOR floating rates. You know nothing 'bout the salt of the earth horny-handed sons of toil what keep our children fed.
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
I think more maternity scandals on the way. It has long been an area of difficult staffing and toxic relationships, not helped by the few set targets being poorly chosen.
On the other hand, all the above reached the light of day, albeit sometimes belatedly, so the reporting systems do work to a degree.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
Yes, it explains that meteorological summer ended at the end of August.
Insisting upon using the equinox as the start and end date is as unscientific and as ridiculous a notion as insisting all transactions should be done solely in cash.
Life has moved on. Its amazing you're so forward thinking in one, and so reactionary and regressive in the other.
The other possibility is that Jezza might well win if he stands.
Indeed, the job might well suit his skills.
Which are....?
Engaging young and marginalised people politically and giving them a voice on the national stage.
I don't really disagree that the London Mayoralty is not a terrible fit for Corbyn - being suitable for those who don't rigidly follow a party line (albeit he rigidly follows his own dogma) and despite some powers is more about presentation than substance, given the past holders - certainly a better fit than being an MP, where he enjoys one aspect but despises the others, and would clearly prefer to be doing rallies.
But I would actually contest that he really engages young people all that much. The British Election Study team for instance argued that there was no 'youthquake' in 2017, and youth turnout was down in 2019. There are caveats to making such estimates of course, it is not easily provable, but it still seems a more solid foundation than the counter, which is that young people on twitter and at rallies seem to like Corbyn, which means...nothing. Very political young people adore(d) him, is that sufficient in itself to mean he engages them meaningfully when they still didn't turn out to vote? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/
And since he is so ostracised from mainstream politics thesedays, for good reason, his voice even amplified by being London mayor is not going to carry much weight on anything national, as opposed to regional.
I think there was significant differential turnout among the young which benefited Labour in 2017. He was extremely popular with apolitical young people at first - remember the rock concert where he turned up unexpectedly and the crowd went so wild that he thought they were shouting abuse - that's when the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" thing started. I had lots of personal evidence of young people saying they didn't usually vote but they would for him. Conversely I met young Tories who really didn't cotton to Theresa May and said they'd sit it out.
Corbyn had an absolutely dismal record at elections, from local elections to European elections to by-elections to general elections. He didn't win any and went backwards at pretty much all of them. That doesn't speak to a youthquake, which at worst might be expected to significantly counter a gerentoquake the other way.
Even 2017 was an election he lost, which was only called in the first place because May expected to win a landslide, and which he lost despite the Tories pissing off their core vote and then running an exceptionally defensive campaign where May - already a cautious performer - was not allowed to be herself and was overly scripted to obviously implausible positions.
Anyway, that was then. To the extent that he was popular in 2017, he's not now.
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
How soon we forget those Thursday evening rock'n'roll sessions with saucepan lids.
A strong, independent investigational system isn’t an “attack on an institution”.
It is vital for the survival of the institution.
There are two kinds of institution - ones where corruption goes unchecked and ones where it is fought.
Perfect institutions that are perfectly righteous all by themselves exist only in the most childish fairy stories.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
There is an interesting paradox on election timing.
Clinging on until January 25 will guarantee a rout for the Tories, however the chances are very high that they will lose at any time the election is held in 2024. So if you are PM, you will stay for as long as possible, since defeat of some kind is pretty certain, but delaying a) leaves at least a chance that something could turn up and b) you get to stay PM.
From the point of view of the Conservative party, while you would want to minimize the defeat and save as many seats as you can, nevertheless the hope that something will turn up keeps you at the government table for a few more weeks/months.
From the point of view of the country, however, the Conservatives move from being unpopular to becoming toxic waste and any chance the voters get they will kick the Tories as hard as they can: locals, by elections, anywhere.
By 2025 the voters go on a kill frenzy ("were you still up for Rees Mogg?") and it takes at least two Parliaments to recover, and maybe they do not survive in their current form...
Having fought one winter election in 2019, I would not want to do it again, but that does seem to be where Sunak is headed.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
Yes, it explains that meteorological summer ended at the end of August.
Insisting upon using the equinox as the start and end date is as unscientific and as ridiculous a notion as insisting all transactions should be done solely in cash.
Life has moved on. Its amazing you're so forward thinking in one, and so reactionary and regressive in the other.
Autumn begins on 23 September this year, as this fact sheet from the Met Office says. There is no scientific basis for so-called meteorological autumn, it is simply used to the seasons neatly align with months, for statistical purposes.
I hadn’t realised so many people would be triggered by this, so just read this fact sheet and choose your own seasons!!
They have this to say about the idea of using the autumn equinox as the start of autumn.
"There are many sources, such as diaries, which use these dates as if they were the boundaries of the seasons. For example ‘June 21, Summer begins’, but this leads to confusion when, in many European countries, June 24 is celebrated as midsummer day."
I believe you are confused.
The Wikipedia page on seasons is pretty good, and makes clear that all seasons definitions are arbitrary (but some are useful).
I believe that the current vogue for using the equinoxes and solstices as the start of the season is a consequence of the American dominance of the internet. It makes a bit more sense in the US, which is far enough south that they have much less variation in day length, and so it doesn't matter so much that the definition means there is the same amount of daylight in autumn as in winter.
As I said earlier, for a definition for specifically an English summer, I think cricket is perfect. It has to be warm, dry and bright to play and watch cricket, and these are the features we think of when we think of good summer weather. So the dates when the best cricket matches are played is a perfect indicator of revealed preference for when the weather is most suitable for cricket, and consequently most summery.
I really don't know why you are so wedded to the astronomical dates. If the astronomy was most important to you then these would be the mid-points of the seasons - as used by the Romans.
I've toyed with a variation on the Finnish approach in the past - something like summer has started once you've had the first day in the year with a maximum temperature above 20C, and autumn has started based on some contrary threshold - but I think the seasonal cycle in temperature for England is relatively so small, and the weather variation in temperature so large, that it doesn't work so well.
Personally I've found that, even though Ireland is so close to Britain, perhaps because I'm now living in a rural area with less artificial lighting, I'm finding that the Irish seasons - based on day length - fit my subjective experience much more closely than the English seasons - based on cricket (or a combination of day length and temperature).
Remember that, in reality, the seasons are continuous, and any division into categories is artificial and made-up. It's much more interesting if you let go of the idea of there being one true definition for the seasons.
But your definition is definitely completely wrong.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
London forecast for a week today is 22c and sunny. Hardly ‘autumnal’! Bring it on. Sounds heavenly, compared to the disgusting heat we’ve had to endure for a week down here. 33c today. Somebody make it stop.
I love heat but in the sun trap courtyard of my Forest of Dean hotel it is already about 25C and “feels like” 35C. Ouch
I cannot remember September weather like this in the UK. Probably because it is, indeed, unprecedented - in the strength and duration of the heatwave for this this month
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
There is an interesting paradox on election timing.
Clinging on until January 25 will guarantee a rout for the Tories, however the chances are very high that they will lose at any time the election is held in 2024. So if you are PM, you will stay for as long as possible, since defeat of some kind is pretty certain, but delaying a) leaves at least a chance that something could turn up and b) you get to stay PM.
From the point of view of the Conservative party, while you would want to minimize the defeat and save as many seats as you can, nevertheless the hope that something will turn up keeps you at the government table for a few more weeks/months.
From the point of view of the country, however, the Conservatives move from being unpopular to becoming toxic waste and any chance the voters get they will kick the Tories as hard as they can: locals, by elections, anywhere.
By 2025 the voters go on a kill frenzy ("were you still up for Rees Mogg?") and it takes at least two Parliaments to recover, and maybe they do not survive in their current form...
Having fought one winter election in 2019, I would not want to do it again, but that does seem to be where Sunak is headed.
On the actual article linked to, I think it's the Sun who are putting the 2030 gloss on it and suggesting a January 2025 election is seriously on the cards. Indeed, even if there was a January 2025 election, it's possible but unlikely the next Parliament would run to 2030. It just reads better on a headline to say 2030 than 2029 because it feels much further away than 2029 even though it isn't much in reality.
Betfair has 2025 as a 5.1 shot if you think that's where it's going, but I don't.
Personally, I think the idea of Spring 2024 is underrated, but accept that the most likely thing is he either launches it at the Tory Conference or just before Conference season.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
Yes, it explains that meteorological summer ended at the end of August.
Insisting upon using the equinox as the start and end date is as unscientific and as ridiculous a notion as insisting all transactions should be done solely in cash.
Life has moved on. Its amazing you're so forward thinking in one, and so reactionary and regressive in the other.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
London forecast for a week today is 22c and sunny. Hardly ‘autumnal’! Bring it on. Sounds heavenly, compared to the disgusting heat we’ve had to endure for a week down here. 33c today. Somebody make it stop.
I love heat but in the sun trap courtyard of my Forest of Dean hotel it is already about 25C and “feels like” 35C. Ouch
I cannot remember September weather like this in the UK. Probably because it is, indeed, unprecedented - in the strength and duration of the heatwave for this this month
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
London forecast for a week today is 22c and sunny. Hardly ‘autumnal’! Bring it on. Sounds heavenly, compared to the disgusting heat we’ve had to endure for a week down here. 33c today. Somebody make it stop.
I love heat but in the sun trap courtyard of my Forest of Dean hotel it is already about 25C and “feels like” 35C. Ouch
I cannot remember September weather like this in the UK. Probably because it is, indeed, unprecedented - in the strength and duration of the heatwave for this this month
It’s the night temps that are a killer, without aircon.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
Ask not lawyers for advice, for they will say both yes and no.
It's called keeping an open mind , surely it's a lawyers job to try and see both/all sides of an argument? You have to consider all the facts. In some cases not all of the facts will be known and some assumptions (guesses) may have to be made to fill the gaps.
Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know which can add extra uncertainty.
In many cases one side will come out looking stronger, that's the one to go for, but in other cases it's more complex, especially if you've had to make lots of assumptions (or you just don't know enough)
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
London forecast for a week today is 22c and sunny. Hardly ‘autumnal’! Bring it on. Sounds heavenly, compared to the disgusting heat we’ve had to endure for a week down here. 33c today. Somebody make it stop.
I love heat but in the sun trap courtyard of my Forest of Dean hotel it is already about 25C and “feels like” 35C. Ouch
I cannot remember September weather like this in the UK. Probably because it is, indeed, unprecedented - in the strength and duration of the heatwave for this this month
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
London forecast for a week today is 22c and sunny. Hardly ‘autumnal’! Bring it on. Sounds heavenly, compared to the disgusting heat we’ve had to endure for a week down here. 33c today. Somebody make it stop.
I love heat but in the sun trap courtyard of my Forest of Dean hotel it is already about 25C and “feels like” 35C. Ouch
I cannot remember September weather like this in the UK. Probably because it is, indeed, unprecedented - in the strength and duration of the heatwave for this this month
It’s the night temps that are a killer, without aircon.
Last night was lovely here. Mild in the evening, but went down to a cool, sweet 14C at night, easy for sleeping
The other day in response to Mike's suggested comparison to 1992, with which this bears no relation politically, economically, or socially whatsoever, I suggested that it could be more like 1979 than 1997.
I have reasoned that we should be taking June 2017, not December 2019's 'Get Brexit Done' election, as our benchmark. 2017 was a hung parliament. And there is no guarantee that the specific Boris Brexit voters are going to be putting their crosses on any ballot paper box, let alone the Conservative one.
Economically and politically this feels like the dying embers of Callaghan's Labour. The Winter of Discontent. Everything falling apart, including the economy. A PM that was out of touch and aloof. It's arguably worse this time but you get the drift.
People were also unsure at the time about Margaret Thatcher's suitability for the job. Seems unlikely with hindsight but it's true of the time.
She won with a majority of 44.
I think 2017 is as dubious a baseline as 2019 tbh. Both elections where the electorate was trying to game outcomes one way or another.
I think the 1979 comparison feels a bit more valid. Both elections at a time when the political philosophy of the ruling party has been ruthlessly exposed by events.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
Anyway, that was then. To the extent that he was popular in 2017, he's not now.
We'll see. A senior (publicly anti-Corbyn) NEC member told me that the decision to exclude him from the PLP was high risk, because if he stood as an independent in Islington North (the Mayoral possibility hadn't even come up), half the London membership would be distracted to canvass for him instead of focusing on the GE. His base on the current polling is only 10 points behind Khan and I think there is a real risk that he'd emerge as the main non-Tory, like Livingstone, and because of FPTP he might pull it off - the allure of a feisty independent is strong in Mayoral elections (which is why I dislike them - policies barely get a look-in). But the safer and less divisive option for him is simply to fight his own seat. Simply giving up and doing nothing is IMO unlikely, but I don't have any inside info.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
They’re the same seasons, just warmer. Like in hotter countries,
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
I think more maternity scandals on the way. It has long been an area of difficult staffing and toxic relationships, not helped by the few set targets being poorly chosen.
On the other hand, all the above reached the light of day, albeit sometimes belatedly, so the reporting systems do work to a degree.
I was appalled to discover that we spend ca.£3.2 billion on maternity services and ca.£8 billion on negligence claims (approx 60% of the total bill of £13.3 billion in 2021 - 2022).
Some of the cases referred to above only reached the light of day because of patients pushing hard, often in the face of obstruction by the hospitals concerned. So I am not sure that I would agree that the reporting systems worked.
You could just as easily say this of finance but the fact that Libor and FX and many other scandals eventually came to light was not evidence of the system working. Quite the opposite. None of these problems - whether in the NHS or banks or the police or anywhere - started out as big scandals. They all started out small and should - if the reporting systems really worked as they should do - have been picked up at a very early stage.
That they weren't - or if they were- were not properly handled is evidence of the failure of the systems not its eventual success.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
I reckon if I stick to shady paths i will be ok
You’ve decided me. I’m gonna do it!
Personally I’d kayak. It’s a beautiful route.
Trouble is it’s SO hot as soon as you walk out it hits you BANG - like heat in Greece in early August - and your immediate reaction is to go lie down in the shade with a long cold drink
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
It's summer when it is hot, winter when it is cold, autumn or spring when in-between. It isn't complicated and the precise dates will vary with the Isle of Wight different to Tayside.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
The Met Office themselves analyse seasonal climate based on DJF, NAM, JJA and SON. The WMO classifies JJA as the boreal summer.
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
It literally says there are two main definitions of summer. Why on earth is there an ongoing argument about the only definition of summer?
Next week on pb - two hundred and fifty belligerent posts to discuss whether a pound is a unit of currency or a measure of weights......
It is very simple: if I have to wear socks, wrist warmers and a snood (in addition to clothes on the rest of my body, just to stop any filthy minds on here) it is winter. Just socks: autumn. Long-sleeved dress or top: spring Sleeveless: summer
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
This is on my to-do list.
The idea is to do something similar to Hubert Lamb - create a season's definition based on an analysis of the weather - but then to see how the seasons have changed over time. Ideally the result would be that you had a definition that was relatively stable in the face of decadal variability that existed before global warming really kicked in, and then it would be interesting to see whether climate change had moved it markedly yet.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
It's summer when it is hot, winter when it is cold, autumn or spring when in-between. It isn't complicated and the precise dates will vary with the Isle of Wight different to Tayside.
“It isn’t complicated”. It isn’t correct.
Argentina had a winter heatwave this year with temperatures into the low 30s. It was still winter.
It famously snowed on a cricket match in June 1975. It wasn’t winter.
In a strange turn of events the birds have all started singing here. Proper dawn chorus style. Which means it is officially now spring.
This is normal. Birdsong dies down massively through July and August normally and then picks up again in September. Not on the scale of the Spring Dawn Chorus but after a couple of months of relative quiet it is very noticeable.
If you are interested in the bird song then downoad an app called Merlin on your phone. It identifies the birds doing the singing and helps you to learn them yourself. It is not perfect - it has trouble distinguishing the contact calls of a few birds and seems to have particular trouble with raptors - but it is still very very good.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
I reckon if I stick to shady paths i will be ok
You’ve decided me. I’m gonna do it!
Personally I’d kayak. It’s a beautiful route.
Trouble is it’s SO hot as soon as you walk out it hits you BANG - like heat in Greece in early August - and your immediate reaction is to go lie down in the shade with a long cold drink
If the sea was 10 feet away I’d jump in
Which is why, dear one, you should live next to the sea. Like me.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
To be fair to the lawyer, that's true on quite a lot of the sorts of legal points that go to court. It's not ludicrous or unhelpful to say, "look, if this goes to court, the outcome is going to be a bit of a toss-up, so you might well want to settle outside court rather than taking your chances".
Though sometimes the rush to avoid making any form of judgment seems a bit more deliberate. A few years ago I was taken to tribunal and I spoke to a lawyer our insurance firm was meant to provide legal cover for and after a minimal discussion of the details he said it was a 50-50 case and the insurance policy only covered 51%+ cases.
Thankfully in this instance a few days later I got some more evidence, a private Whatsapp message sent to a group which someone in the group screenshotted and sent me that showed the polar opposite of the claimants claim that completely demolished the case and showed the claimant knew he was making the claim in bad faith.
Upon seeing this the lawyer immediately took the case. Upon doing so he then completely demolished the claims of the claimant and it ended up going to tribunal and we won comprehensively. The claimant objected to his private message being included in our evidence pack, saying that it was meant to be private, and the tribunal judge said that it was admissible but it didn't matter as the evidence was so comprehensive even if that message wasn't included he'd have lost his case.
But if it wasn't for that evidence, the insurance would never have paid for the case. Despite the fact that evidence ended up being unnecessary once the lawyer put the legwork in.
PS again a lesson for the golden rule to never put anything in writing unless you're prepared for that to be Exhibit A used against you down the line. There's no such thing as "private".
Quite a common one for the "don't put it in writing" files is that you get quite a few cases in things like price-fixing investigations where some pompous idiot steps into an email thread to say, "We could get into legal difficulty with all this and shouldn't be putting it in writing, so I suggest we do this entirely by phone in future and keep no notes" thereby basically admitting, in writing, that the participants not only are breaking the law but also know they are.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
It's summer when it is hot, winter when it is cold, autumn or spring when in-between. It isn't complicated and the precise dates will vary with the Isle of Wight different to Tayside.
Thanks for that, Einstein
You do realise this is PB and we derive at least 43.7% of our fun from pointless, arcane disputes about whatever-we-fancy, from the correct definition of “the West Country*” to the optimum distribution of sultanas in an Eccles Cake
*begins just east of Taunton. Bath is NOT West Country
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
There is an interesting paradox on election timing.
Clinging on until January 25 will guarantee a rout for the Tories, however the chances are very high that they will lose at any time the election is held in 2024. So if you are PM, you will stay for as long as possible, since defeat of some kind is pretty certain, but delaying a) leaves at least a chance that something could turn up and b) you get to stay PM.
From the point of view of the Conservative party, while you would want to minimize the defeat and save as many seats as you can, nevertheless the hope that something will turn up keeps you at the government table for a few more weeks/months.
From the point of view of the country, however, the Conservatives move from being unpopular to becoming toxic waste and any chance the voters get they will kick the Tories as hard as they can: locals, by elections, anywhere.
By 2025 the voters go on a kill frenzy ("were you still up for Rees Mogg?") and it takes at least two Parliaments to recover, and maybe they do not survive in their current form...
Having fought one winter election in 2019, I would not want to do it again, but that does seem to be where Sunak is headed.
On the actual article linked to, I think it's the Sun who are putting the 2030 gloss on it and suggesting a January 2025 election is seriously on the cards. Indeed, even if there was a January 2025 election, it's possible but unlikely the next Parliament would run to 2030. It just reads better on a headline to say 2030 than 2029 because it feels much further away than 2029 even though it isn't much in reality.
Betfair has 2025 as a 5.1 shot if you think that's where it's going, but I don't.
Personally, I think the idea of Spring 2024 is underrated, but accept that the most likely thing is he either launches it at the Tory Conference or just before Conference season.
Very small straw in the wind was the questionnaire I received recently from Laurence Robertson. Bet a lot of constituencies were surprised to learn he was their MP, such is his normal level of somnolence.
That kind of thing is expensive, so it made me wonder whether we are close to an election. Spring 2024 may well be on then, although my money may would still be on the autumn.
Hanging on to the death is simply not feasible. They'd risk wipeout, even if events were somehow to turn in their favour.
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
I think more maternity scandals on the way. It has long been an area of difficult staffing and toxic relationships, not helped by the few set targets being poorly chosen.
On the other hand, all the above reached the light of day, albeit sometimes belatedly, so the reporting systems do work to a degree.
I was appalled to discover that we spend ca.£3.2 billion on maternity services and ca.£8 billion on negligence claims (approx 60% of the total bill of £13.3 billion in 2021 - 2022).
Some of the cases referred to above only reached the light of day because of patients pushing hard, often in the face of obstruction by the hospitals concerned. So I am not sure that I would agree that the reporting systems worked.
You could just as easily say this of finance but the fact that Libor and FX and many other scandals eventually came to light was not evidence of the system working. Quite the opposite. None of these problems - whether in the NHS or banks or the police or anywhere - started out as big scandals. They all started out small and should - if the reporting systems really worked as they should do - have been picked up at a very early stage.
That they weren't - or if they were- were not properly handled is evidence of the failure of the systems not its eventual success.
The cost of litigation is particularly high in obstetrics due to lifelong care costs for the disabled, and loss of earnings*. It is why there is only one hospital in the country doing private maternity care, and that is a private wing of an NHS teaching hospital.
One aspect of this is that the system awards large sums for a birth damaged by hypoxia, but nothing if equally disabled by fate, hence the long protracted cases. A system of no fault damages as per Scandanavia or New Zealand is both cheaper and kinder. Hunt has a chapter in it on his book Zero.
If there was one simple measure , it would be to stop scrutinising Caesarian rates. A common feature of maternity scandals is that midwives and obstetricians were in conflict, and in large part due to attitudes to operative deliveries. The fact is that for our skill mix and staffing levels, early section is often the safest option. In better resourced, better trained systems then more vaginal deliveries are safe, but we cannot safely force that by diktat.
*one shocking fact is that lifetime loss of earnings awards are determined in part by parental occupation, a defacto acceptance of social immobility.
Reports starting to circulate of despondent Labour canvassers in Mid Beds
Despondent labour canvassers = good news for Labour. Because it means a likely Lib Dem win and therefore not a Tory hold. And the last thing Starmer needs is a new comeback narrative for the Tories.
Give up Mid Beds and throw the kitchen sink at Tamworth.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
I reckon if I stick to shady paths i will be ok
You’ve decided me. I’m gonna do it!
Personally I’d kayak. It’s a beautiful route.
Trouble is it’s SO hot as soon as you walk out it hits you BANG - like heat in Greece in early August - and your immediate reaction is to go lie down in the shade with a long cold drink
If the sea was 10 feet away I’d jump in
Which is why, dear one, you should live next to the sea. Like me.
I confess that does look extremely enviable, right now
One of the most shocking stories of this mad weather year was that report from Florida of the sea being 100F (IIRC) - literally the temp of a nice bath
Ugh! Imagine diving in that to cool off. Only to realise its like hot soup
In a strange turn of events the birds have all started singing here. Proper dawn chorus style. Which means it is officially now spring.
This is normal. Birdsong dies down massively through July and August normally and then picks up again in September. Not on the scale of the Spring Dawn Chorus but after a couple of months of relative quiet it is very noticeable.
If you are interested in the bird song then downoad an app called Merlin on your phone. It identifies the birds doing the singing and helps you to learn them yourself. It is not perfect - it has trouble distinguishing the contact calls of a few birds and seems to have particular trouble with raptors - but it is still very very good.
Interesting. Sounded like mainly blackbirds (beautiful song) with a few other unknown ones thrown in.
In other news... Another 36 Russian artillery pieces claimed destroyed by Ukraine this morning. I've mentioned before that, since Ukraine's counteroffensive shaping operations began at the start of May, they've claimed an average of 20 Russian artillery pieces destroyed each day, compared to an overall claimed average of about 10 per day - a sign that Ukraine is increasingly winning the artillery war.
This recently appears to have stepped up a notch, with the 7-day average of Ukrainian claimed Russian artillery losses now above 30 for several days. In the absence of air superiority this is crucially important - it's said that it was an artillery shell that destroyed the Challenger II tank that was destroyed.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
Ask not lawyers for advice, for they will say both yes and no.
It's called keeping an open mind , surely it's a lawyers job to try and see both/all sides of an argument? You have to consider all the facts. In some cases not all of the facts will be known and some assumptions (guesses) may have to be made to fill the gaps.
Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know which can add extra uncertainty.
In many cases one side will come out looking stronger, that's the one to go for, but in other cases it's more complex, especially if you've had to make lots of assumptions (or you just don't know enough)
Goodness me, this sounds a lot like betting!
If a lawyer couldn't see all sides, they'd have no chance of refuting opposing arguments.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
I reckon if I stick to shady paths i will be ok
You’ve decided me. I’m gonna do it!
Personally I’d kayak. It’s a beautiful route.
Trouble is it’s SO hot as soon as you walk out it hits you BANG - like heat in Greece in early August - and your immediate reaction is to go lie down in the shade with a long cold drink
If the sea was 10 feet away I’d jump in
Which is why, dear one, you should live next to the sea. Like me.
I confess that does look extremely enviable, right now
One of the most shocking stories of this mad weather year was that report from Florida of the sea being 100F (IIRC) - literally the temp of a nice bath
Ugh! Imagine diving in that to cool off. Only to realise its like hot soup
It was bad enough in Corsica last year when it was 30C. Unpleasant like the Persian gulf.
I think the perfect sea temperature is around 21-22C. Cold enough to be bracing but not so cold that you need multiple stages of courage (around the thighs, then the testicles, then worst of all the waistline before that final, terrifying plunge up to the neck).
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
There is an interesting paradox on election timing.
Clinging on until January 25 will guarantee a rout for the Tories, however the chances are very high that they will lose at any time the election is held in 2024. So if you are PM, you will stay for as long as possible, since defeat of some kind is pretty certain, but delaying a) leaves at least a chance that something could turn up and b) you get to stay PM.
From the point of view of the Conservative party, while you would want to minimize the defeat and save as many seats as you can, nevertheless the hope that something will turn up keeps you at the government table for a few more weeks/months.
From the point of view of the country, however, the Conservatives move from being unpopular to becoming toxic waste and any chance the voters get they will kick the Tories as hard as they can: locals, by elections, anywhere.
By 2025 the voters go on a kill frenzy ("were you still up for Rees Mogg?") and it takes at least two Parliaments to recover, and maybe they do not survive in their current form...
Having fought one winter election in 2019, I would not want to do it again, but that does seem to be where Sunak is headed.
On the actual article linked to, I think it's the Sun who are putting the 2030 gloss on it and suggesting a January 2025 election is seriously on the cards. Indeed, even if there was a January 2025 election, it's possible but unlikely the next Parliament would run to 2030. It just reads better on a headline to say 2030 than 2029 because it feels much further away than 2029 even though it isn't much in reality.
Betfair has 2025 as a 5.1 shot if you think that's where it's going, but I don't.
Personally, I think the idea of Spring 2024 is underrated, but accept that the most likely thing is he either launches it at the Tory Conference or just before Conference season.
Very small straw in the wind was the questionnaire I received recently from Laurence Robertson. Bet a lot of constituencies were surprised to learn he was their MP, such is his normal level of somnolence.
That kind of thing is expensive, so it made me wonder whether we are close to an election. Spring 2024 may well be on then, although my money may would still be on the autumn.
Hanging on to the death is simply not feasible. They'd risk wipeout, even if events were somehow to turn in their favour.
If it’s spring 2024 does that mean it could be in March to May, or from the 21st March to midsummer day?
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
Ask not lawyers for advice, for they will say both yes and no.
It's called keeping an open mind , surely it's a lawyers job to try and see both/all sides of an argument? You have to consider all the facts. In some cases not all of the facts will be known and some assumptions (guesses) may have to be made to fill the gaps.
Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know which can add extra uncertainty.
In many cases one side will come out looking stronger, that's the one to go for, but in other cases it's more complex, especially if you've had to make lots of assumptions (or you just don't know enough)
Goodness me, this sounds a lot like betting!
If a lawyer couldn't see all sides, they'd have no chance of refuting opposing arguments.
Good morning, everyone.
There's a difference between keeping an open mind, and never proffering an opinion when the time comes to make a decision though.
Sometimes an issue requires an open answer, even if a client wants something else. But never being able to provide a firm view one way or another is not good practice either.
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
I think more maternity scandals on the way. It has long been an area of difficult staffing and toxic relationships, not helped by the few set targets being poorly chosen.
On the other hand, all the above reached the light of day, albeit sometimes belatedly, so the reporting systems do work to a degree.
I was appalled to discover that we spend ca.£3.2 billion on maternity services and ca.£8 billion on negligence claims (approx 60% of the total bill of £13.3 billion in 2021 - 2022).
Some of the cases referred to above only reached the light of day because of patients pushing hard, often in the face of obstruction by the hospitals concerned. So I am not sure that I would agree that the reporting systems worked.
You could just as easily say this of finance but the fact that Libor and FX and many other scandals eventually came to light was not evidence of the system working. Quite the opposite. None of these problems - whether in the NHS or banks or the police or anywhere - started out as big scandals. They all started out small and should - if the reporting systems really worked as they should do - have been picked up at a very early stage.
That they weren't - or if they were- were not properly handled is evidence of the failure of the systems not its eventual success.
The cost of litigation is particularly high in obstetrics due to lifelong care costs for the disabled, and loss of earnings*. It is why there is only one hospital in the country doing private maternity care, and that is a private wing of an NHS teaching hospital.
One aspect of this is that the system awards large sums for a birth damaged by hypoxia, but nothing if equally disabled by fate, hence the long protracted cases. A system of no fault damages as per Scandanavia or New Zealand is both cheaper and kinder. Hunt has a chapter in it on his book Zero.
If there was one simple measure , it would be to stop scrutinising Caesarian rates. A common feature of maternity scandals is that midwives and obstetricians were in conflict, and in large part due to attitudes to operative deliveries. The fact is that for our skill mix and staffing levels, early section is often the safest option. In better resourced, better trained systems then more vaginal deliveries are safe, but we cannot safely force that by diktat.
*one shocking fact is that lifetime loss of earnings awards are determined in part by parental occupation, a defacto acceptance of social immobility.
I experienced a little of that conflict with my first child - not over delivery but in relation to breastfeeding, which I was unable to do. The health visitor kept insisting I keep going. I was in agony with mastitis, my son was not being fed and it was only when the GP got involved that it got sorted. He was furious at the health visitor. I can see how that sort of conflict at delivery stage can cause problems.
Elevating any mantra over the real need: a safe delivery of a healthy child, a properly fed baby etc is what causes problems. Mantras should never be an end in themselves. They should be one of the ways of remembering what the objective is. But that can easily be forgotten. And not just in health care.
The Moroccan earthquake is looking pretty awful. When the radio came on this morning you immediately feared the worst: mountainous region, remote hard to reach villages, poorly built breeze block apartment buildings that are taller than they should be. All the ingredients we’ve seen in recent years in Turkey and Syria, Iran, Pakistan, all the way back to Armenia in the 80s.
Reports starting to circulate of despondent Labour canvassers in Mid Beds
Oh, Theakes, give over. I'm not bothering to pass on the anecdotal stuff that I get about excited Labour canvassers - we both have biased sources, and I suspect that neither of us really know.
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
I reckon if I stick to shady paths i will be ok
You’ve decided me. I’m gonna do it!
Personally I’d kayak. It’s a beautiful route.
Trouble is it’s SO hot as soon as you walk out it hits you BANG - like heat in Greece in early August - and your immediate reaction is to go lie down in the shade with a long cold drink
If the sea was 10 feet away I’d jump in
Which is why, dear one, you should live next to the sea. Like me.
Oh, yes. I was in London this week. Wednesday and Thursday nights were sauna-like. I sweated as I did during the summers when I lived inland in Spain. Back in Sidmouth last night and the temperature felt 15 degrees cooler. We even had a bit of rain. Lovely!
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Beautiful part of the world and well worth a step out before the heat really rises. Or you could kayak, and splash from pub to pub? Wish I was there!
I reckon if I stick to shady paths i will be ok
You’ve decided me. I’m gonna do it!
Personally I’d kayak. It’s a beautiful route.
Trouble is it’s SO hot as soon as you walk out it hits you BANG - like heat in Greece in early August - and your immediate reaction is to go lie down in the shade with a long cold drink
If the sea was 10 feet away I’d jump in
Which is why, dear one, you should live next to the sea. Like me.
I confess that does look extremely enviable, right now
One of the most shocking stories of this mad weather year was that report from Florida of the sea being 100F (IIRC) - literally the temp of a nice bath
Ugh! Imagine diving in that to cool off. Only to realise its like hot soup
It was listed as one of the best beaches in the U.K. by the Times a couple of years back. And it really is - very flat and miles of golden sand. The best thing about it is that it is never crowded, even in the height of summer. There is canoeing and paddle boarding and fishing and horse riding on the beach which is just something else.
The whole west coast is like this.
The other treat in these times is swimming in the Duddon River - swimming in very cold river water from the mountains is amazing. An experience like no other.
A friend has recently joined the Cumbria police. It took the best part of a year for all the pre-employment checks to be done. He's doing his training in Penrith and, so far, enjoying it. Came home for the weekend and said the hatred of and contempt for the Met among the senior officers was quite something. They hate being tarred with the same brush. As well they might.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust 2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust 3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed. 4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby. 5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust. 6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence. 7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
I think more maternity scandals on the way. It has long been an area of difficult staffing and toxic relationships, not helped by the few set targets being poorly chosen.
On the other hand, all the above reached the light of day, albeit sometimes belatedly, so the reporting systems do work to a degree.
I was appalled to discover that we spend ca.£3.2 billion on maternity services and ca.£8 billion on negligence claims (approx 60% of the total bill of £13.3 billion in 2021 - 2022).
Some of the cases referred to above only reached the light of day because of patients pushing hard, often in the face of obstruction by the hospitals concerned. So I am not sure that I would agree that the reporting systems worked.
You could just as easily say this of finance but the fact that Libor and FX and many other scandals eventually came to light was not evidence of the system working. Quite the opposite. None of these problems - whether in the NHS or banks or the police or anywhere - started out as big scandals. They all started out small and should - if the reporting systems really worked as they should do - have been picked up at a very early stage.
That they weren't - or if they were- were not properly handled is evidence of the failure of the systems not its eventual success.
The cost of litigation is particularly high in obstetrics due to lifelong care costs for the disabled, and loss of earnings*. It is why there is only one hospital in the country doing private maternity care, and that is a private wing of an NHS teaching hospital.
One aspect of this is that the system awards large sums for a birth damaged by hypoxia, but nothing if equally disabled by fate, hence the long protracted cases. A system of no fault damages as per Scandanavia or New Zealand is both cheaper and kinder. Hunt has a chapter in it on his book Zero.
If there was one simple measure , it would be to stop scrutinising Caesarian rates. A common feature of maternity scandals is that midwives and obstetricians were in conflict, and in large part due to attitudes to operative deliveries. The fact is that for our skill mix and staffing levels, early section is often the safest option. In better resourced, better trained systems then more vaginal deliveries are safe, but we cannot safely force that by diktat.
*one shocking fact is that lifetime loss of earnings awards are determined in part by parental occupation, a defacto acceptance of social immobility.
I experienced a little of that conflict with my first child - not over delivery but in relation to breastfeeding, which I was unable to do. The health visitor kept insisting I keep going. I was in agony with mastitis, my son was not being fed and it was only when the GP got involved that it got sorted. He was furious at the health visitor. I can see how that sort of conflict at delivery stage can cause problems.
Elevating any mantra over the real need: a safe delivery of a healthy child, a properly fed baby etc is what causes problems. Mantras should never be an end in themselves. They should be one of the ways of remembering what the objective is. But that can easily be forgotten. And not just in health care.
Very true. The cost of doing so may be much elevated in health care, but it causes damage whereever it is found. People get fixated on what amounts basically to a slogan or mission statement, which might well be pretty good most of the time, and then warp things around it.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
There is an interesting paradox on election timing.
Clinging on until January 25 will guarantee a rout for the Tories, however the chances are very high that they will lose at any time the election is held in 2024. So if you are PM, you will stay for as long as possible, since defeat of some kind is pretty certain, but delaying a) leaves at least a chance that something could turn up and b) you get to stay PM.
From the point of view of the Conservative party, while you would want to minimize the defeat and save as many seats as you can, nevertheless the hope that something will turn up keeps you at the government table for a few more weeks/months.
From the point of view of the country, however, the Conservatives move from being unpopular to becoming toxic waste and any chance the voters get they will kick the Tories as hard as they can: locals, by elections, anywhere.
By 2025 the voters go on a kill frenzy ("were you still up for Rees Mogg?") and it takes at least two Parliaments to recover, and maybe they do not survive in their current form...
Having fought one winter election in 2019, I would not want to do it again, but that does seem to be where Sunak is headed.
On the actual article linked to, I think it's the Sun who are putting the 2030 gloss on it and suggesting a January 2025 election is seriously on the cards. Indeed, even if there was a January 2025 election, it's possible but unlikely the next Parliament would run to 2030. It just reads better on a headline to say 2030 than 2029 because it feels much further away than 2029 even though it isn't much in reality.
Betfair has 2025 as a 5.1 shot if you think that's where it's going, but I don't.
Personally, I think the idea of Spring 2024 is underrated, but accept that the most likely thing is he either launches it at the Tory Conference or just before Conference season.
Very small straw in the wind was the questionnaire I received recently from Laurence Robertson. Bet a lot of constituencies were surprised to learn he was their MP, such is his normal level of somnolence.
That kind of thing is expensive, so it made me wonder whether we are close to an election. Spring 2024 may well be on then, although my money may would still be on the autumn.
Hanging on to the death is simply not feasible. They'd risk wipeout, even if events were somehow to turn in their favour.
If it’s spring 2024 does that mean it could be in March to May, or from the 21st March to midsummer day?
Depends which part of the country you are in, Tim. Maybe we have the election at different times in different places according to the season.
Some RWC predictions for today: Italy to easily beat Namibia by 20+pts Ireland to easily beat Romania by 20+pts Argentina to beat England by 10pts Australia v Georgia could be a banana skin match (betting opportunity). Georgia have a solid pack who will wear Australia down, and while you would expect Australia to have the superior skills, tactics, fitness etc - you have to factor in Eddie Jones who has generated a lot of bad feeling in the camp. I am not saying that Georgia will win - but it is possible. Bet accordingly. If they can win it will turn this group inside out!!
I was gonna go for a hike above Symond’s Yat but… hmm….
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
I thought we'd all agreed to move to just two seasons, winter and summer, and call the inbetweeny bits 'warm slush' or 'cold slush' depending on the occasion.
On topic - the R&W London poll that got everyone excited shows the Tories getting a lower vote share than they have received in any London mayoral election since 2004. It also shows both the Greens and LibDems considerably outperforming their normal mayoral numbers. Khan is a very poor candidate but I would not be panicking yet if i were him. He will face months of brutal media attacks, though. If the Tories had a better candidate they'd have a very good chance indeed.
On a side note, one thing that seems to have had little attention is that the old STV voting system the Tories got rid of for entirely partisan reasons was approved by Londoners in a referendum. So, let's not kid ourselves that such referenda are requirements for voting system changes.
SKS fans fuming because the man they claim is an electoral liability is so popular that Labour can't win the London mayoral election without his voters.
I can’t see Hall winning under any circumstances. She’s not up to the job, and that will become clear under any sort of scrutiny.
The Tories are desperately trying to make ULEZ an issue, but it’s a core vote strategy. It won’t add much beyond it.
The Tories also fail to notice that there was a big swing against them in Uxbridge. They just need to make full use of their remaining year to loot the country as they won't get another chance in the foreseeable future.
Asked if he considered himself unlucky during his flight to the G20 summit in Delhi, Sunak laughed before rejecting the suggestion outright. He instead said he was “fired up” and “entirely confident” that the Tories can win, highlighting a series of new appointments in No 10 and the Tories’ recent by-election victory in Uxbridge.
“I am entirely confident that we can win the next election, you had a sense of that just a couple of months ago in Uxbridge,” he said. “In that by-election, when voters were confronted with an actual choice between us and the Labour Party on an issue of substance, what did they do? They voted for us."
Check out what John Major said in the run up to 1997.
Or what Neil Kinnock said in public/private in the run up to 1992
In both cases, private polling had told them what was going to happen.
It’s part of the “truths that can never be stated” in politics.
Was there private polling that Kinnock saw that suggested he would lose? Didn’t know that. I assumed ALL polling was wrong in advance of 1992.
In the documentaries done after the election Kinnock was emphatic that the result was not a surprise.
People slightly misremember the 1992 election as one in which Labour were well ahead in the polls in the campaign. They weren't - they were narrowly ahead in most polls and narrowly behind in some polls, right up to a Gallup poll on eve of poll. So the published polls weren't showing Kinnock waltzing into Downing Street - they were showing a very close election.
In that sense, no doubt Kinnock was prepared for a range of results. But, if he's saying he wasn't surprised that Major won rather comfortably with a margin in the popular vote of 7.5%, as he had access to a higher calibre of polling, I call BS on that.
On ITV News the eve of the election Martin Brunson correctly predicted that people could be in for a surprise. So if anyone had listened to him, and bet, it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
He said this because he saw the late swing in at least one last minute poll to Major.
Or should that be the late swing against Kinnock? Sheffield was excruciatingly awful.
Saying "people could be in for a surprise" isn't a prediction at all. It's just a glib thing all correspondents say to cover the fact that the polls might be wrong and they don't know.
Now if he'd said, "Notwithstanding the polls, I think Major will win fairly comfortably" then that's an actual prediction and I'd give him some credit.
Reminds me of an occasion recently where someone asked a lawyer at a meeting for his legal opinion on a matter. He gave quite possibly the lamest non-answer I'd ever heard, being essentially 'Well, it could be argued X, but on the other hand Y, so really it could be either'.
Ask not lawyers for advice, for they will say both yes and no.
It's called keeping an open mind , surely it's a lawyers job to try and see both/all sides of an argument? You have to consider all the facts. In some cases not all of the facts will be known and some assumptions (guesses) may have to be made to fill the gaps.
Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know which can add extra uncertainty.
In many cases one side will come out looking stronger, that's the one to go for, but in other cases it's more complex, especially if you've had to make lots of assumptions (or you just don't know enough)
Goodness me, this sounds a lot like betting!
If a lawyer couldn't see all sides, they'd have no chance of refuting opposing arguments.
Good thread diversity this morning. Possibly record breaking.
- London mayor - definition of summer - It’s hot, let’s swim in the sea / should I climb up Symonds yat - US election polling - RWC - Moroccan earthquake (albeit only my one post) - post-natal care failures - Mid beds by-election - Ukraine war
We’re decidedly lacking in house building or Brexit though.
Some RWC predictions for today: Italy to easily beat Namibia by 20+pts Ireland to easily beat Romania by 20+pts Argentina to beat England by 10pts Australia v Georgia could be a banana skin match (betting opportunity). Georgia have a solid pack who will wear Australia down, and while you would expect Australia to have the superior skills, tactics, fitness etc - you have to factor in Eddie Jones who has generated a lot of bad feeling in the camp. I am not saying that Georgia will win - but it is possible. Bet accordingly. If they can win it will turn this group inside out!!
I think Argentina v England could be quite a tasty game and it's definitely not in the bag for England. And you are right, Australia v Georgia could be very interesting
SKS fans fuming because the man they claim is an electoral liability is so popular that Labour can't win the London mayoral election without his voters.
I am all for Corbyn standing as an independent. It would see a lot of very politically toxic people thrown out of both Labour and the Greens, so making both more electorally attractive in the longer-term. He would also lose, so confirming that he is not very popular.
Comments
Since then, Boris was effective at making himself Mr London- less so at the knitting. Sadiq is OK at the day to day stuff, but doesn't project himself as Mayor
It may well be Centrist Dad speaking, but there's certainly room for someone like Rory Stewart. But the change in the voting system means a lot of voters will go for the lesser of two likely evils, rather than a candidate they like. For some, that will be Hall because they hate ULEZ. For others, it will be Khan, because Hall really is that awful. A breakout candidate might break out, but more likely, they'll be squashed like a bug.
I think it's out of a desire to believe someone, somewhere, is genuinely on top of things and can predict the way things are going. Sure, sometimes they will, but there are enough examples that parties get surprised positively and negatively by events that it cannot be assumed any private info they have is better.
His exact words iirc were 'But I just wonder. I wonder if when people wake up on Friday they are going to be in for a surprise'. This was after he reported evidence he had heard of a last minute swing back to the Conservatives.
Since he was the main ITV political editor at the time, that's as close a prediction as he was probably allowed to make.
Kudos to Martin Brunson I say.
Khan is ok, Corbyn is interesting. Don't know much about Hall but she's getting a terrible Press on here.
There's a lot more in terms of planning and development, acting as an ambassador for the city to attract investment. They have the scale to do some interesting things - as happened under Johnson with cycling infrastructure - but are not so big that it becomes difficult to try something new.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9808/
The other day in response to Mike's suggested comparison to 1992, with which this bears no relation politically, economically, or socially whatsoever, I suggested that it could be more like 1979 than 1997.
I have reasoned that we should be taking June 2017, not December 2019's 'Get Brexit Done' election, as our benchmark. 2017 was a hung parliament. And there is no guarantee that the specific Boris Brexit voters are going to be putting their crosses on any ballot paper box, let alone the Conservative one.
Economically and politically this feels like the dying embers of Callaghan's Labour. The Winter of Discontent. Everything falling apart, including the economy. A PM that was out of touch and aloof. It's arguably worse this time but you get the drift.
People were also unsure at the time about Margaret Thatcher's suitability for the job. Seems unlikely with hindsight but it's true of the time.
She won with a majority of 44.
I hadn’t realised so many people would be triggered by this, so just read this fact sheet and choose your own seasons!!
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/seasons/summer/when-does-summer-start
They clearly just didn't know the answer and so hedged, rather than not being able to provide a definitive answer on a matter which may not be definitive.
It says Astronomical Autumn begins on 23rd September. It does not say that there is 'no scientific basis for so-called' meteorological autumn either.
It's spurious (of you) to say that the seasons are governed 'scientifically' according to the way the earth spins on its tilted axis and circles the sun because meteorology in the UK is governed by a multiplicity of additional scientific factors.
I study the weather, admittedly as an amateur, and everyone I know using meteorological seasons.
It's already autumn and if it doesn't feel like it today, it sure as heck will a week from now.
He would be a lousy mayor of London, albeit one whose incompetence would have the benefit of showing once and for all how weak the Mayors office and London Assembly are and how badly London local government is structured between Mayor, Assembly and the Boroughs.
However, I also think the "plague on both your houses" is quite marked, and would just note that in the last European elections (also a comparably not particularly important election) the Liberal Democrats were the largest party in London. I do not think the apparently high Lib Dem vote in the latest poll is a bogey, and it could be the platform for something genuinely unexpected.
Meanwhile - and this feels almost bizarrely karmic (given the way both institutions are stupidly hero worshipped by political parties), were it not so depressing - there are currently 7 police investigations into various hospital trusts:-
1. Alleged abuse at Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust
2. Alleged abuse at home for men with severe learning disabilities and autism run by the Surrey and Borders Partners Foundation Trust
3. Derby NHS Trust investigation into a Dr Hay - police working with them to see if criminal offences committed.
4. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital: nurse under investigation re possible poisoning of baby.
5. The investigation into a possible cover up into mother and baby deaths at the Nottingham Trust.
6. Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton - police investigation into patient deaths allegedly caused by medical negligence.
7. Nurse under investigation over baby deaths at Birmingham Children's Hospital
2 trials: 1 of some nurses at Blackpool's Victoria Hospital for alleged ill treatment of stroke patients and the recent charges of North East London Trust for corporate manslaughter / gross negligence manslaughter.
He's as smart as a whip and as poisonous as a rattlesnake.
Thankfully in this instance a few days later I got some more evidence, a private Whatsapp message sent to a group which someone in the group screenshotted and sent me that showed the polar opposite of the claimants claim that completely demolished the case and showed the claimant knew he was making the claim in bad faith.
Upon seeing this the lawyer immediately took the case. Upon doing so he then completely demolished the claims of the claimant and it ended up going to tribunal and we won comprehensively. The claimant objected to his private message being included in our evidence pack, saying that it was meant to be private, and the tribunal judge said that it was admissible but it didn't matter as the evidence was so comprehensive even if that message wasn't included he'd have lost his case.
But if it wasn't for that evidence, the insurance would never have paid for the case. Despite the fact that evidence ended up being unnecessary once the lawyer put the legwork in.
PS again a lesson for the golden rule to never put anything in writing unless you're prepared for that to be Exhibit A used against you down the line. There's no such thing as "private".
He clearly implied that he thought the Conservatives were going to win, and was the only mainstream commentator to say so. I remember sitting there thinking, 'wow' I wasn't expecting that.
Kudos to Martin Brunson for getting it right.
I've not read the entire BET study, and as I say they caveat it too because it's hard to estimate these things, but an attempt to study it seems more persuasive than 'remember a crowd went wild?'
It's not like the study was poo pooing Corbyn's popularity, take this point from a response to critique.
Our data suggest that Labour’s share of the vote increased amongst all voters under the age of 70. Additionally, there was a sharp increase in Conservative voting amongst the over 60s. The idea that the result of the 2017 election can be explained simply by looking at the voting behaviour of the youngest group of voters misses most of the story.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-impact/youthquake-a-reply-to-our-critics/#.Xg8gDUegJPZ
The whole Autumn begins on the equinox thing is bizarre because I don’t understand the point these people are trying to make. There
is none. Unless it’s a subtle way of saying “nothing to see here, it’s hot in summer, nothing to do with climate change”. But I don’t even think it’s that.
We also have a bit of a cult of youth at times, where we think things are more interesting if said by young people, see many young green campaigners saying nothing different to older ones. It makes Corbyn more revolutionary if it is a youthquake, rather than just another campaign.
But its unseasonably warm and its not remotely normal to get such fantastic weather not in the middle of summer, but early in autumn instead.
This is very unseasonable weather. Which is why its an unprecedented September heatwave.
Or as it was put better by LostPassword at 8:44am this would be great weather to play Test Cricket in, but there's none scheduled, because the expected summer has finished already and this weather in unexpected.
Of course, the advantage of 'private polling' is that it can mean anything from 'a full survey from a BPC member' to 'our activist spent 5 minutes canvassing Acacia Avenue, to 'I've done a trawl of Twitter', and the journalist has no way to tell the difference.
Rolling ULEZ back to N/S Circulars (I think that's currently Hall's plan) might not be a vote winner in six months time.
(Another data point, there was huge fury about the Poll Tax when it was introduced. The Labour lead was about 25 percent in April 1990. That had halved by the autumn, even before Maggie went.)
The Met Office explains it here.
On the other hand, all the above reached the light of day, albeit sometimes belatedly, so the reporting systems do work to a degree.
Insisting upon using the equinox as the start and end date is as unscientific and as ridiculous a notion as insisting all transactions should be done solely in cash.
Life has moved on. Its amazing you're so forward thinking in one, and so reactionary and regressive in the other.
Even 2017 was an election he lost, which was only called in the first place because May expected to win a landslide, and which he lost despite the Tories pissing off their core vote and then running an exceptionally defensive campaign where May - already a cautious performer - was not allowed to be herself and was overly scripted to obviously implausible positions.
Anyway, that was then. To the extent that he was popular in 2017, he's not now.
It is vital for the survival of the institution.
There are two kinds of institution - ones where corruption goes unchecked and ones where it is fought.
Perfect institutions that are perfectly righteous all by themselves exist only in the most childish fairy stories.
Clinging on until January 25 will guarantee a rout for the Tories, however the chances are very high that they will lose at any time the election is held in 2024. So if you are PM, you will stay for as long as possible, since defeat of some kind is pretty certain, but delaying a) leaves at least a chance that something could turn up and b) you get to stay PM.
From the point of view of the Conservative party, while you would want to minimize the defeat and save as many seats as you can, nevertheless the hope that something will turn up keeps you at the government table for a few more weeks/months.
From the point of view of the country, however, the Conservatives move from being unpopular to becoming toxic waste and any chance the voters get they will kick the Tories as hard as they can: locals, by elections, anywhere.
By 2025 the voters go on a kill frenzy ("were you still up for Rees Mogg?") and it takes at least two Parliaments to recover, and maybe they do not survive in their current form...
Having fought one winter election in 2019, I would not want to do it again, but that does seem to be where Sunak is headed.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/met-office-for-schools/other-content/other-resources/our-seasons
There's also this webpage from the National Physical Laboratory.
https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/q-a/when-do-the-four-seasons-begin
They have this to say about the idea of using the autumn equinox as the start of autumn.
"There are many sources, such as diaries, which use these dates as if they were the boundaries of the seasons. For example ‘June 21, Summer begins’, but this leads to confusion when, in many European countries, June 24 is celebrated as midsummer day."
I believe you are confused.
The Wikipedia page on seasons is pretty good, and makes clear that all seasons definitions are arbitrary (but some are useful).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
I believe that the current vogue for using the equinoxes and solstices as the start of the season is a consequence of the American dominance of the internet. It makes a bit more sense in the US, which is far enough south that they have much less variation in day length, and so it doesn't matter so much that the definition means there is the same amount of daylight in autumn as in winter.
As I said earlier, for a definition for specifically an English summer, I think cricket is perfect. It has to be warm, dry and bright to play and watch cricket, and these are the features we think of when we think of good summer weather. So the dates when the best cricket matches are played is a perfect indicator of revealed preference for when the weather is most suitable for cricket, and consequently most summery.
I really don't know why you are so wedded to the astronomical dates. If the astronomy was most important to you then these would be the mid-points of the seasons - as used by the Romans.
I've toyed with a variation on the Finnish approach in the past - something like summer has started once you've had the first day in the year with a maximum temperature above 20C, and autumn has started based on some contrary threshold - but I think the seasonal cycle in temperature for England is relatively so small, and the weather variation in temperature so large, that it doesn't work so well.
Personally I've found that, even though Ireland is so close to Britain, perhaps because I'm now living in a rural area with less artificial lighting, I'm finding that the Irish seasons - based on day length - fit my subjective experience much more closely than the English seasons - based on cricket (or a combination of day length and temperature).
Remember that, in reality, the seasons are continuous, and any division into categories is artificial and made-up. It's much more interesting if you let go of the idea of there being one true definition for the seasons.
But your definition is definitely completely wrong.
Next week on pb - two hundred and fifty belligerent posts to discuss whether a pound is a unit of currency or a measure of weights......
I cannot remember September weather like this in the UK. Probably because it is, indeed, unprecedented - in the strength and duration of the heatwave for this this month
Betfair has 2025 as a 5.1 shot if you think that's where it's going, but I don't.
Personally, I think the idea of Spring 2024 is underrated, but accept that the most likely thing is he either launches it at the Tory Conference or just before Conference season.
Re the seasons debate. Surely the meteorological definition needs to change if our seasons themselves are changing. The wine maker I met yesterday (who should know) was adamant that in his forty years as adult landowner then viticulturalist he’s seen spring arrive earlier, summer extend later, and winter become milder, but with more extremes and blocking throughout (even though individual years can vary enormously)
Which is pretty much the consensus now. So we need a new definition of “meteorological summer”
Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know which can add extra uncertainty.
In many cases one side will come out looking stronger, that's the one to go for, but in other cases it's more complex, especially if you've had to make lots of assumptions (or you just don't know enough)
Goodness me, this sounds a lot like betting!
I can imagine London is broiling
Now I have to decide on this hike. Yike
I think the 1979 comparison feels a bit more valid. Both elections at a time when the political philosophy of the ruling party has been ruthlessly exposed by events.
You’ve decided me. I’m gonna do it!
Some of the cases referred to above only reached the light of day because of patients pushing hard, often in the face of obstruction by the hospitals concerned. So I am not sure that I would agree that the reporting systems worked.
You could just as easily say this of finance but the fact that Libor and FX and many other scandals eventually came to light was not evidence of the system working. Quite the opposite. None of these problems - whether in the NHS or banks or the police or anywhere - started out as big scandals. They all started out small and should - if the reporting systems really worked as they should do - have been picked up at a very early stage.
That they weren't - or if they were- were not properly handled is evidence of the failure of the systems not its eventual success.
If the sea was 10 feet away I’d jump in
Just socks: autumn.
Long-sleeved dress or top: spring
Sleeveless: summer
I am currently sleeveless: so it is summer.
There. Sorted.
The idea is to do something similar to Hubert Lamb - create a season's definition based on an analysis of the weather - but then to see how the seasons have changed over time. Ideally the result would be that you had a definition that was relatively stable in the face of decadal variability that existed before global warming really kicked in, and then it would be interesting to see whether climate change had moved it markedly yet.
Argentina had a winter heatwave this year with temperatures into the low 30s. It was still winter.
It famously snowed on a cricket match in June 1975. It wasn’t winter.
If you are interested in the bird song then downoad an app called Merlin on your phone. It identifies the birds doing the singing and helps you to learn them yourself. It is not perfect - it has trouble distinguishing the contact calls of a few birds and seems to have particular trouble with raptors - but it is still very very good.
You do realise this is PB and we derive at least 43.7% of our fun from pointless, arcane disputes about whatever-we-fancy, from the correct definition of “the West Country*” to the optimum distribution of sultanas in an Eccles Cake
*begins just east of Taunton. Bath is NOT West Country
That kind of thing is expensive, so it made me wonder whether we are close to an election. Spring 2024 may well be on then, although my money may would still be on the autumn.
Hanging on to the death is simply not feasible. They'd risk wipeout, even if events were somehow to turn in their favour.
One aspect of this is that the system awards large sums for a birth damaged by hypoxia, but nothing if equally disabled by fate, hence the long protracted cases. A system of no fault damages as per Scandanavia or New Zealand is both cheaper and kinder. Hunt has a chapter in it on his book Zero.
If there was one simple measure , it would be to stop scrutinising Caesarian rates. A common feature of maternity scandals is that midwives and obstetricians were in conflict, and in large part due to attitudes to operative deliveries. The fact is that for our skill mix and staffing levels, early section is often the safest option. In better resourced, better trained systems then more vaginal deliveries are safe, but we cannot safely force that by diktat.
*one shocking fact is that lifetime loss of earnings awards are determined in part by parental occupation, a defacto acceptance of social immobility.
Is this confined to the Theakes household, or have the neighbours started to whisper?
Give up Mid Beds and throw the kitchen sink at Tamworth.
One of the most shocking stories of this mad
weather year was that report from Florida of the sea being 100F (IIRC) - literally the temp of a nice bath
Ugh! Imagine diving in that to cool off. Only to realise its like hot soup
Another 36 Russian artillery pieces claimed destroyed by Ukraine this morning. I've mentioned before that, since Ukraine's counteroffensive shaping operations began at the start of May, they've claimed an average of 20 Russian artillery pieces destroyed each day, compared to an overall claimed average of about 10 per day - a sign that Ukraine is increasingly winning the artillery war.
This recently appears to have stepped up a notch, with the 7-day average of Ukrainian claimed Russian artillery losses now above 30 for several days. In the absence of air superiority this is crucially important - it's said that it was an artillery shell that destroyed the Challenger II tank that was destroyed.
Good morning, everyone.
I think the perfect sea temperature is around 21-22C. Cold enough to be bracing but not so cold that you need multiple stages of courage (around the thighs, then the testicles, then worst of all the waistline before that final, terrifying plunge up to the neck).
Sometimes an issue requires an open answer, even if a client wants something else. But never being able to provide a firm view one way or another is not good practice either.
Elevating any mantra over the real need: a safe delivery of a healthy child, a properly fed baby etc is what causes problems. Mantras should never be an end in themselves. They should be one of the ways of remembering what the objective is. But that can easily be forgotten. And not just in health care.
The whole west coast is like this.
The other treat in these times is swimming in the Duddon River - swimming in very cold river water from the mountains is amazing. An experience like no other.
Italy to easily beat Namibia by 20+pts
Ireland to easily beat Romania by 20+pts
Argentina to beat England by 10pts
Australia v Georgia could be a banana skin match (betting opportunity). Georgia have a solid pack who will wear Australia down, and while you would expect Australia to have the superior skills, tactics, fitness etc - you have to factor in Eddie Jones who has generated a lot of bad feeling in the camp. I am not saying that Georgia will win - but it is possible. Bet accordingly.
If they can win it will turn this group inside out!!
On a side note, one thing that seems to have had little attention is that the old STV voting system the Tories got rid of for entirely partisan reasons was approved by Londoners in a referendum. So, let's not kid ourselves that such referenda are requirements for voting system changes.
2024 National Republican Primary
Trump 45% (-4)
DeSantis 9% (-1)
Christie 9% (+2)
Haley 7% (+4)
Ramaswamy 5% (-6)
Scott 4% (=)
Pence 4% (+1)
Elder 1% (=)
[Change vs Aug. 21]
@Rasmussen_Poll | 1,418 LV | 8/29-9/5
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/trump_maintains_primary_lead_after_first_gop_debate
SKS fans fuming because the man they claim is an electoral liability is so popular that Labour can't win the London mayoral election without his voters.
- London mayor
- definition of summer
- It’s hot, let’s swim in the sea / should I climb up Symonds yat
- US election polling
- RWC
- Moroccan earthquake (albeit only my one post)
- post-natal care failures
- Mid beds by-election
- Ukraine war
We’re decidedly lacking in house building or Brexit though.
And you are right, Australia v Georgia could be very interesting