In Kemiworld tactical voting is dirty tricks – politicalbetting.com

Omnium said:

I'm curious - did the uncomfortable switch in displayed post order break all of the Kremlin-bots targeted at PB?

Yes, it’s totally confused them. They have been banned before they’ve even posted.

Absolutely corking thunderstorm starting and waterspouts seen out at sea.

HYUFD said:

RMG Research Harris 50% Trump 48%
https://napolitaninstitute.org/2024/09/06/harris-continues-to-lead-trump-50-to-48/

Too close. She needs at least a three-point lead.

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

gettingbetter said:

rkrkrk said:

Who does @HYUFD think will win?
From what I recall he was right last time...

Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.

The thing is that the moderate wing of the party has well over one third of the votes. So both Jenrick and Badenoch can't go to the members. One of Cleverley or Stride or Tugendhat has to go through.To win she needs to get ahead of Jenrick on MPs' votes. And that doesn't look very likely unless he makes a big mistake.

I hope Jenrick wins. He’s the best candidate to further alienate the voters the Tories need to stay ahead of the Lib Dems.

Is he? He has less negatives than Priti does and actually polls slightly better than Kemi with voters overall. Admittedly Cleverly seems to be favoured by Tory and Labour and LD voters but not by much.

Stride polls worst with Tory, Reform and all voters not Jenrick, indeed Jenrick polls slightly better with current Tory voters than Kemi, though Kemi does better than Jenrick with Reform voters
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-the-i-poll-conservative-party-leadership-and-voting-intention/

In any case Reform are closer to the Tories votes wise than the LDs and indeed if you believe the latest BMG poll Labour have a smaller lead over the Tories now for first than Reform do over the LDs for 3rd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

If Jenrick wins, he will damage your party more than any of the others. Voters don’t like slimeballs.

MikeL said:

Basic maths:

Right = Jenrick+Badenoch+Patel = 64

Moderate = Cleverly+Tugendhat+Stride = 54

You need max of 41 (and realistically only 39 or 40) to make the final. So the moderate wing are guaranteed to get someone in the final.

So there is no chance whatsoever of the final being Jenrick v Badenoch - unless Jenrick has lent at least 14 votes which isn't realistic.

If Badenoch thinks Jenrick is lending votes, then Jenrick's true lead over Badenoch is even greater - making Badenoch's chance of making the final even less than it appears.

I'm not sure the Right/Moderate paradigm is necessarily going to hold up in any meaningful way. With so few electors in play the interpersonal relationships between members and any future shadow roles that have been promised will play a bigger part. The idea that candidates will have only offered plums to those on their own wing is probably flawed simply because of the lack of numbers/talent.

Incidentally, my preferred two candidates - who I'd honestly struggle to choose between - consist of one from your 'Right' group and one 'Moderate'. Though I have to keep reminding myself that I'm no longer a party member and I'm not getting a vote...

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

There were 3 by-elections in Camden this week, following 3 Labour councillors all being elected MPs. All three very safe Labour seats.

Turnout was abysmal: 13-18%

Camden Square: LibDems were a distant second last time. This time an independent, possibly associated with the local, ex-Labour Corbynites, was a slightly closer second. The Conservative vote collapsed: their candidate was pushed into 6th.

Kentish Town South: Greens were second last time and were a slightly closer second this time. Another collapse in the Conservative vote, although this time they weren’t last, coming just ahead of the LibDem.

Kilburn: Conservatives were second last time and managed a slightly improved second this time.

Overall, I don’t know what you can say on such a low turnout. Labour won all 3 comfortably, if on reduced majorities. No immediate signs of a Tory revival, with a collapse in 2 wards. I don’t know whether the Camden Conservative Party chose just to focus their effort on the Kilburn ward. Local Corbynites remain very active, constantly writing in to the local paper, but they’re still a long way from winning anything. Greens will be happy with a slight improvement in Kentish Town South, but nothing to write home about really. Nothing to celebrate for the LibDems, but the local party certainly didn’t see any of these seats as being winnable.

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

List of candidates for the role of Lord High Executioner.

Lord Blackadder....

*rolls up parchment*

MattW said:

Leon said:

I approve of my daughter’s choice

Will we get a report of you wild swimming in the Castle Sands tidal swimming pool below the ruins of St Andrews' Castle?

It has Noom. My photo quota:

I learnt to swim in a slightly more modern equivalent on the other side of the Forth. North-facing ...

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

Strong words from the PM.

"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.

In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".

He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1m0vxxk7yno

Enough about how bad things are, what’s his plan to actually fix the problems? All he’s done so far is handed out a bunch of pay rises to the existing staff.

He doesn't seem to have realised he's now in Government.

There is a huge, if minority, market and audience for considered and thought out solutions to things, an audience that rejected the Tory offer, does not think that everything can be done instantly, has almost no belief in legislating our way out of things, has no interest in gimmicks or eye catching initiatives, doesn't need to be told that the Tories have been sub-optimal, and can think long term.

This audience is not being well served, so far, by the new Labour government. It also isn't being well served by journalism. The places this audience will look for this sort of intelligence would be Times, Guardian, New Statesman, Speccie, Economist, BBC. I don't know what other PB volk think, but it seems to me they are doing less well in the matter of 'solutions' than they might. Is it just me?

No.

But, Shirley, if we pass just 100,000 pages more legislation, we can create Nirvana? No need for enforcement or even spending money. Just lovely laws & regulation's

And, you could just come as you are.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

gettingbetter said:

rkrkrk said:

Who does @HYUFD think will win?
From what I recall he was right last time...

Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.

The thing is that the moderate wing of the party has well over one third of the votes. So both Jenrick and Badenoch can't go to the members. One of Cleverley or Stride or Tugendhat has to go through.To win she needs to get ahead of Jenrick on MPs' votes. And that doesn't look very likely unless he makes a big mistake.

I hope Jenrick wins. He’s the best candidate to further alienate the voters the Tories need to stay ahead of the Lib Dems.

Is he? He has less negatives than Priti does and actually polls slightly better than Kemi with voters overall. Admittedly Cleverly seems to be favoured by Tory and Labour and LD voters but not by much.

Stride polls worst with Tory, Reform and all voters not Jenrick, indeed Jenrick polls slightly better with current Tory voters than Kemi, though Kemi does better than Jenrick with Reform voters
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-the-i-poll-conservative-party-leadership-and-voting-intention/

In any case Reform are closer to the Tories votes wise than the LDs and indeed if you believe the latest BMG poll Labour have a smaller lead over the Tories now for first than Reform do over the LDs for 3rd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

If Jenrick wins, he will damage your party more than any of the others. Voters don’t like slimeballs.

I doubt it, Starmer is not exactly mister honesty himself having imposed withdrawn winter fuel allowance and raised tax to reward his public sector union supporters.

Jenrick is the only candidate I can see that could hold current Tory voters and win back voters who switched from the Tories to Labour and voters who switched to Reform. Jenrick was also born and raised to working class parents in Wolverhampton so is far less posh than Boris or Rishi or even Truss and could connect with redwall voters in areas like the industrial Midlands again.

LD voters probably won't like him much and would prefer Cleverly or Tugendhat but there is an argument for Jenrick. Indeed if the Tories won back 150 seats from Labour and Reform took 50 seats from Labour you could even get a Jenrick government with confidence and supply from Farage even if the Tories did not regain a single seat back from the LDs they lost in July

The risk is he puts off LD defectors but the Reform voters don't come back anyway.

I think the best choice is one who can put up a robust attack on Labour's policy choices and record, particularly in the economic decisions they're making, and work up a credible immigration policy beneath that.

People know what the Tories say on immigration. In a sense, a new leader doesn’t have to work to get that message out. The problem for the party is that people don’t believe the Tories deliver on immigration. There’s little they can do in opposition to change minds on that. I think they just have to wait for memories to fade!

Going on about immigration will do nothing for the Tories while people see them as having failed to deliver. It just drives voters to Reform UK. So, yes, I agree with you that they should attack Labour on the economy.

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

Damn, I was forgetting him.

Is he still alive? Hard to tell these days.

TimS said:

rottenborough said:

algarkirk said:

Roger said:

GIN1138 said:

Roger said:

rottenborough said:

This easily must be one of the biggest unforced errors a Chancellor has made so early in their time in No. 11 for a very very long time:


Labour MP: “It hasn’t even been thought through properly. We’re going to end up with more old people in hospital or care as a result, with all the costs involved in that,”

A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”


Labour ministers reveal grave concerns about winter fuel payment cut
Frontbenchers say they have had string of complaints from constituents and policy ‘won’t be worth the political hit’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/07/labour-ministers-reveal-grave-concerns-about-winter-fuel-payment-cut

Where is the evidence outside of hysterics by the Mail and Express?

If a quarter of pensioners are millionaires it's reasonable to assume that they at least won't miss the £300 gift. Many anecdotally found it an embarrasment or found a charity to give it to. One apparently specifically designed to take it

It told me that Reeves is a serious politician who wants to put things on a sensible footing and gimmicks are not part of her plans.

If only every pensioner was a millionaire with the mansion on the Cote d'Azure... But here's an idea. There will be many pensioners going cold and hungry this winter so how about you invite a few of them down to the south of France with you?

Share some of that Mediterranean sunshine this winter?

The facts are that pensioners are the richest cohort. It's also a fact that 25% of pensioners when assets are included are worth more than £1,000,000.

It could be that the dividing line is cutting out worthy people but surely you can see the idiocy of giving 2,500,000 millionaires some living in the hot spots of Europe £300 a year for fuel?

Can't you think of a better use for this money? A new fully equipped cancer hospital perhaps or maybe fix our prison systems. This is the ideal time for a new government to reset the clock

The 'millionaire pensioner' things requires more than sloganising.

1) The numbers are mostly about households assets not individual

2) Asset values count. If you live in a modest property in London/SE you are half way there or more.

3) Pension pots value count towards the million. These for many are the source of ordinary but not gargantuan income

4) £500K (the other half is the modest house) popped in the building society will give you a gross income of £20,000 or so. Very nice, but not riches untold.

I agree that most (including me) should not get WFA, but lots should. And asset/capital values should never be lumped in with income to give a ludicrous headline.

Every pensioner has an asset value of £200k as they get the state pension. That's a rough equivalent that would be needed to be saved to get the pension.

Yes, current 65 year old annuity best buys, with inflation, are around 5.5%. So 200k buys you an 11k pension.

It was a lot worse before recent interest rate rises and will get worse when they return back down.
And that’s at current slightly higher annuity
rates, and probably assuming no inflation.

One has to bear how that would erode with inflation.

If you live to 90 years old you've got 25 years of it which could halve that in real-terms.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

To be clear, I won't be voting in the leadership. There is just such a collective lack of self-awareness amongst those standing. They are the problem. There is nobody there who will enthuse the public to vote for them, even if Starmer crashes and burns.

As I told my (ex)MP, the best bet is probably to put Cleverly in charge, on the basis that he will oversee a two or three year beauty parade, where some new talent can develop their own manifesto to attract the lost voters.

On that latter point, isn't the truth that the party doesn't understand - or even accept - that it has lost the voters? On the outside I look at the contest and sit agog at the complete lack of self-awareness. Its not just that you got demolished, its *why* you got demolished.

If the Tories want to return to Conservatism - sound finance, pro business, internationalist - then Labour are there begging to be attacked. But instead of that, there seems to be this desperate push to go further down the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole that got you first hated and then demolished.

I don't get it.

Conservatism isn't internationalist; that's a Labour/LD philosophy.

It isn't "nationalist" either - or isolationist - it's about constructively engaging with other nations with the British national interest at heart and robustly defending those interests.

I would argue that a rules based international order is a conservative value. (Or maybe it's simply a recognition that medium sized, open economies, are the ones which benefit most.)

The balance of powers is a conservative value.

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

To be clear, I won't be voting in the leadership. There is just such a collective lack of self-awareness amongst those standing. They are the problem. There is nobody there who will enthuse the public to vote for them, even if Starmer crashes and burns.

As I told my (ex)MP, the best bet is probably to put Cleverly in charge, on the basis that he will oversee a two or three year beauty parade, where some new talent can develop their own manifesto to attract the lost voters.

On that latter point, isn't the truth that the party doesn't understand - or even accept - that it has lost the voters? On the outside I look at the contest and sit agog at the complete lack of self-awareness. Its not just that you got demolished, its *why* you got demolished.

If the Tories want to return to Conservatism - sound finance, pro business, internationalist - then Labour are there begging to be attacked. But instead of that, there seems to be this desperate push to go further down the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole that got you first hated and then demolished.

I don't get it.

Conservatism isn't internationalist; that's a Labour/LD philosophy.

It isn't "nationalist" either - or isolationist - it's about constructively engaging with other nations with the British national interest at heart and robustly defending those interests.

I would argue that a rules based international order is a conservative value. (Or maybe it's simply a recognition that medium sized, open economies, are the ones which benefit most.)

The balance of powers is a conservative value.

Although its ultimate resolution tends to be destructive rather than conservative.

Destruction happens when the powers beocme imbalanced.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

gettingbetter said:

rkrkrk said:

Who does @HYUFD think will win?
From what I recall he was right last time...

Kemi apparently beats all the others in a head to head with the members... I wouldn't be so confident she won't win? 3.3 doesn't look bad odds tbh.

The thing is that the moderate wing of the party has well over one third of the votes. So both Jenrick and Badenoch can't go to the members. One of Cleverley or Stride or Tugendhat has to go through.To win she needs to get ahead of Jenrick on MPs' votes. And that doesn't look very likely unless he makes a big mistake.

I hope Jenrick wins. He’s the best candidate to further alienate the voters the Tories need to stay ahead of the Lib Dems.

Is he? He has less negatives than Priti does and actually polls slightly better than Kemi with voters overall. Admittedly Cleverly seems to be favoured by Tory and Labour and LD voters but not by much.

Stride polls worst with Tory, Reform and all voters not Jenrick, indeed Jenrick polls slightly better with current Tory voters than Kemi, though Kemi does better than Jenrick with Reform voters
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-the-i-poll-conservative-party-leadership-and-voting-intention/

In any case Reform are closer to the Tories votes wise than the LDs and indeed if you believe the latest BMG poll Labour have a smaller lead over the Tories now for first than Reform do over the LDs for 3rd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

If Jenrick wins, he will damage your party more than any of the others. Voters don’t like slimeballs.

I doubt it, Starmer is not exactly mister honesty himself having imposed withdrawn winter fuel allowance and raised tax to reward his public sector union supporters.

Jenrick is the only candidate I can see that could hold current Tory voters and win back voters who switched from the Tories to Labour and voters who switched to Reform. Jenrick was also born and raised to working class parents in Wolverhampton so is far less posh than Boris or Rishi or even Truss and could connect with redwall voters in areas like the industrial Midlands again.

LD voters probably won't like him much and would prefer Cleverly or Tugendhat but there is an argument for Jenrick. Indeed if the Tories won back 150 seats from Labour and Reform took 50 seats from Labour you could even get a Jenrick government with confidence and supply from Farage even if the Tories did not regain a single seat back from the LDs they lost in July

The risk is he puts off LD defectors but the Reform voters don't come back anyway.

I think the best choice is one who can put up a robust attack on Labour's policy choices and record, particularly in the economic decisions they're making, and work up a credible immigration policy beneath that.

Unfortunately, Jeremy Hunt isn’t standing.

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

Damn, I was forgetting him.

Is he still alive? Hard to tell these days.

Well, you can tell by the way he uses his walk

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Calls to free Lucy Letby fuelled by ‘lies and misinformation’, say parents

Victims’ families tell The Sunday Times that the campaign to free killer nurse has made them question humanity

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-baby-parents-conviction-innocent-kpsdgwpbb

And IMHO the families are absolutely right.

BTW It is noticeable (I think) that the journalists etc who sat through the trial have not been vocal in condemning it.

We've had lots of people on here egging this on including a handful of respected regulars, which surprised me.

Actual questions have been raised which need answers.

Neither the New Yorker nor the Guardian are alt-right hate rags.

It’s worth remembering that families were used to defend previous convictions which turned out to not be safe.

Four points from this.

1) Being precise, which questions, how framed, and how related to the evidence in the trial, giving rise to what area of arguable appeal?

2) Yes; innocent people have been convicted. The families point applies equally to every case with a victim there has ever been where the defendant says they did not do it. There is no particularity about this to the Letby case

3) I have read the New Yorker article. It is journalism, not serious analysis of the evidence and its weight

4) Lots of people refer to unused defence expert evidence as if this demonstrates something. Like me they have not seen it so they can't know.

A small fifth point. Letby, the BBC reports, has changed her lawyers. She has not (SFAIK) yet appealed the second trial, which she is at liberty to try to do. If this happens it will enable a new set of eyes to look at things for the defence. So wait and see would be wise.

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

List of candidates for the role of Lord High Executioner.

Lord Blackadder....

*rolls up parchment*

Is that Liz Truss on the right?

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

To be clear, I won't be voting in the leadership. There is just such a collective lack of self-awareness amongst those standing. They are the problem. There is nobody there who will enthuse the public to vote for them, even if Starmer crashes and burns.

As I told my (ex)MP, the best bet is probably to put Cleverly in charge, on the basis that he will oversee a two or three year beauty parade, where some new talent can develop their own manifesto to attract the lost voters.

On that latter point, isn't the truth that the party doesn't understand - or even accept - that it has lost the voters? On the outside I look at the contest and sit agog at the complete lack of self-awareness. Its not just that you got demolished, its *why* you got demolished.

If the Tories want to return to Conservatism - sound finance, pro business, internationalist - then Labour are there begging to be attacked. But instead of that, there seems to be this desperate push to go further down the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole that got you first hated and then demolished.

I don't get it.

Conservatism isn't internationalist; that's a Labour/LD philosophy.

It isn't "nationalist" either - or isolationist - it's about constructively engaging with other nations with the British national interest at heart and robustly defending those interests.

I would argue that a rules based international order is a conservative value. (Or maybe it's simply a recognition that medium sized, open economies, are the ones which benefit most.)

The balance of powers is a conservative value.

First we got the bomb and that was good,
because we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb but that's ok,
because they balance of power is maintained that way.

Whose next?

We will all go together when we go…

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

List of candidates for the role of Lord High Executioner.

Lord Blackadder....

*rolls up parchment*

Is that Liz Truss on the right?

The Eternal Lettuce

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

List of candidates for the role of Lord High Executioner.

Lord Blackadder....

*rolls up parchment*

Is that Liz Truss on the right?

No, Queenie had a sense of humour, and some self awareness.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

Slightly more concerningly, I read recently that the only serving VP to become President since 1836 was GWB's father, GHWB, who was of course VP to Reagan.

Several have tried including Gore, Humphries and Nixon (in 1960) but they all failed. History doesn't give a ringing endorsement to Harris. But hopefully this will simply allow @rcs1000 to bring out his favourite cartoon once again.

The only serving VP to be *elected* President. Others have succeeded in other ways.

It’s partly because until the 1950s the Vice Presidency wasn’t a very important post - it was vacant for over a year as late as 1963 - so usually men in that slot were picked for reasons other than executive ability. Nixon was picked as an anti-Communist dog whistle, Johnson and Truman to shore up support in the South. Quayle for reasons that remain obscure. Presidents therefore often had other roles prior to election - especially being Governors, but also military or senatorial experience.

And of course on other occasions when they might have won, Vice Presidents have not run - Cheney in 2008, Biden in 2016.

And, finally, Vice Presidents succeeding two term presidents often face major headwinds not of their own making - Humphrey springs to mind - which don’t really apply here. Remember, Biden is the first elected one-term president to not contest re-election since 1880 (Hayes).

So that’s not conclusive.

Remember also only one Presidential candidate has served non-consecutive terms - and Cleveland was popular, winning the vote in all three of his elections. Trump is not.

LostPassword said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

Slightly more concerningly, I read recently that the only serving VP to become President since 1836 was GWB's father, GHWB, who was of course VP to Reagan.

Several have tried including Gore, Humphries and Nixon (in 1960) but they all failed. History doesn't give a ringing endorsement to Harris. But hopefully this will simply allow @rcs1000 to bring out his favourite cartoon once again.

Most of the time a serving VP follows two terms of their President, and so the electorate are ready for a change. Though the voters were pretty unhappy with Biden and seemed ready for a change this time too.

Trump, however, would not be a change. He’s a retread.

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

Damn, I was forgetting him.

Is he still alive? Hard to tell these days.

Outstanding billboard.
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1832159202539880563

Ok, here is another question maybe for @SeaShantyIrish2

How many incumbent Vice Presidents were picked as nominees in the period from 1840 (the death of Harrison) to 1988?

I come up with Breckinridge (1860) Nixon (1960) and Humphrey (1968).

Am I missing anyone?

Other candidates included generals (Grant, Eisenhower) cabinet ministers (Taft, Hoover) governors (McKinley, Hayes, Cleveland, Wilson, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan) senators (Harding, Kennedy) but not vice-presidents.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

Slightly more concerningly, I read recently that the only serving VP to become President since 1836 was GWB's father, GHWB, who was of course VP to Reagan.

Several have tried including Gore, Humphries and Nixon (in 1960) but they all failed. History doesn't give a ringing endorsement to Harris. But hopefully this will simply allow @rcs1000 to bring out his favourite cartoon once again.

Also note that then-incumbent VPs Nixon, Humphrey (NOT "Humphries") and Gore all came VERY close to winning, for what that's worth? Just matter of time before a Veep makes it yet again.

Further note that Martin Van Buren and George Bush the Elder were elected from VP > POTUS, but both failed to win re-election. For what THAT's worth!

If Harris does win it will be because she is not Trump primarily, I can't see her winning re election in 4 years time. A younger Democrat may well replace her too rather than Walz

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Calls to free Lucy Letby fuelled by ‘lies and misinformation’, say parents

Victims’ families tell The Sunday Times that the campaign to free killer nurse has made them question humanity

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-baby-parents-conviction-innocent-kpsdgwpbb

And IMHO the families are absolutely right.

BTW It is noticeable (I think) that the journalists etc who sat through the trial have not been vocal in condemning it.

We've had lots of people on here egging this on including a handful of respected regulars, which surprised me.

Actual questions have been raised which need answers.

Neither the New Yorker nor the Guardian are alt-right hate rags.

It’s worth remembering that families were used to defend previous convictions which turned out to not be safe.

Four points from this.

1) Being precise, which questions, how framed, and how related to the evidence in the trial, giving rise to what area of arguable appeal?

2) Yes; innocent people have been convicted. The families point applies equally to every case with a victim there has ever been where the defendant says they did not do it. There is no particularity about this to the Letby case

3) I have read the New Yorker article. It is journalism, not serious analysis of the evidence and its weight

4) Lots of people refer to unused defence expert evidence as if this demonstrates something. Like me they have not seen it so they can't know.

A small fifth point. Letby, the BBC reports, has changed her lawyers. She has not (SFAIK) yet appealed the second trial, which she is at liberty to try to do. If this happens it will enable a new set of eyes to look at things for the defence. So wait and see would be wise.

IANAL but as I understand it, convicts cannot appeal simply because they do not like the result, and evidence is not new simply because it was not presented at trial.

My own view is Letby may well be guilty of some but not all cases, which is not too far removed from the prosecution case if you think about it, but that something needs to be done about repeated misuse of probability and statistics (and which presumably extends beyond trials even to taking investigations off the right path).

DecrepiterJohnL said:

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Calls to free Lucy Letby fuelled by ‘lies and misinformation’, say parents

Victims’ families tell The Sunday Times that the campaign to free killer nurse has made them question humanity

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-baby-parents-conviction-innocent-kpsdgwpbb

And IMHO the families are absolutely right.

BTW It is noticeable (I think) that the journalists etc who sat through the trial have not been vocal in condemning it.

We've had lots of people on here egging this on including a handful of respected regulars, which surprised me.

Actual questions have been raised which need answers.

Neither the New Yorker nor the Guardian are alt-right hate rags.

It’s worth remembering that families were used to defend previous convictions which turned out to not be safe.

Four points from this.

1) Being precise, which questions, how framed, and how related to the evidence in the trial, giving rise to what area of arguable appeal?

2) Yes; innocent people have been convicted. The families point applies equally to every case with a victim there has ever been where the defendant says they did not do it. There is no particularity about this to the Letby case

3) I have read the New Yorker article. It is journalism, not serious analysis of the evidence and its weight

4) Lots of people refer to unused defence expert evidence as if this demonstrates something. Like me they have not seen it so they can't know.

A small fifth point. Letby, the BBC reports, has changed her lawyers. She has not (SFAIK) yet appealed the second trial, which she is at liberty to try to do. If this happens it will enable a new set of eyes to look at things for the defence. So wait and see would be wise.

IANAL but as I understand it, convicts cannot appeal simply because they do not like the result, and evidence is not new simply because it was not presented at trial.

My own view is Letby may well be guilty of some but not all cases, which is not too far removed from the prosecution case if you think about it, but that something needs to be done about repeated misuse of probability and statistics (and which presumably extends beyond trials even to taking investigations off the right path).

In her first trial, the jury found her guilty on 7 charges of murder, and 7 counts of attempted murder, but not guilty on 2 counts of attempted murder, and they were unable to reach a decision on 6 more counts of attempted murder.

The prosecution dropped 5 of the counts where the jury hadn't reached a decision. They only took 1 to re-trial, where they were successful in getting a guilty verdict.

algarkirk said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Calls to free Lucy Letby fuelled by ‘lies and misinformation’, say parents

Victims’ families tell The Sunday Times that the campaign to free killer nurse has made them question humanity

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-baby-parents-conviction-innocent-kpsdgwpbb

And IMHO the families are absolutely right.

BTW It is noticeable (I think) that the journalists etc who sat through the trial have not been vocal in condemning it.

We've had lots of people on here egging this on including a handful of respected regulars, which surprised me.

Actual questions have been raised which need answers.

Neither the New Yorker nor the Guardian are alt-right hate rags.

It’s worth remembering that families were used to defend previous convictions which turned out to not be safe.

Four points from this.

1) Being precise, which questions, how framed, and how related to the evidence in the trial, giving rise to what area of arguable appeal?

2) Yes; innocent people have been convicted. The families point applies equally to every case with a victim there has ever been where the defendant says they did not do it. There is no particularity about this to the Letby case

3) I have read the New Yorker article. It is journalism, not serious analysis of the evidence and its weight

4) Lots of people refer to unused defence expert evidence as if this demonstrates something. Like me they have not seen it so they can't know.

A small fifth point. Letby, the BBC reports, has changed her lawyers. She has not (SFAIK) yet appealed the second trial, which she is at liberty to try to do. If this happens it will enable a new set of eyes to look at things for the defence. So wait and see would be wise.

IANAL but as I understand it, convicts cannot appeal simply because they do not like the result, and evidence is not new simply because it was not presented at trial.

My own view is Letby may well be guilty of some but not all cases, which is not too far removed from the prosecution case if you think about it, but that something needs to be done about repeated misuse of probability and statistics (and which presumably extends beyond trials even to taking investigations off the right path).

Yes (you need arguable grounds or reasons for appealing). And yes (simplifying slightly), it is not generally permitted in appeals to introduce evidence which was or could have been available at trial. Litigation has to encourage being able to reach finality.

As to probability and stats, this is interesting, but no use unless someone can frame a 'ground of appeal' in a precise point as to what it is exactly that has been misused or gone wrong, not generally in cases, but in this case and this set of alleged facts in particular.

I don't know, I wasn't there and have an open mind. I have as yet read nothing which amounts to anything reasoned or precise, with lots of voices repeating the same generalisations, and no-one getting to an exact point, and the evidence from what I have gleaned (see the appeal and the judge's sentencing remarks) appears strong.

I've read the judgement, the sentencing and the court of appeal judgement. The evidence cited is clear and overwhelming. I can't see how anyone who read it could think otherwise.

Yes, there occasionally are miscarriages of justice and judgements that smelly iffy.

This isn't one of them.

bondegezou said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Calls to free Lucy Letby fuelled by ‘lies and misinformation’, say parents

Victims’ families tell The Sunday Times that the campaign to free killer nurse has made them question humanity

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-baby-parents-conviction-innocent-kpsdgwpbb

And IMHO the families are absolutely right.

BTW It is noticeable (I think) that the journalists etc who sat through the trial have not been vocal in condemning it.

We've had lots of people on here egging this on including a handful of respected regulars, which surprised me.

Actual questions have been raised which need answers.

Neither the New Yorker nor the Guardian are alt-right hate rags.

It’s worth remembering that families were used to defend previous convictions which turned out to not be safe.

Four points from this.

1) Being precise, which questions, how framed, and how related to the evidence in the trial, giving rise to what area of arguable appeal?

2) Yes; innocent people have been convicted. The families point applies equally to every case with a victim there has ever been where the defendant says they did not do it. There is no particularity about this to the Letby case

3) I have read the New Yorker article. It is journalism, not serious analysis of the evidence and its weight

4) Lots of people refer to unused defence expert evidence as if this demonstrates something. Like me they have not seen it so they can't know.

A small fifth point. Letby, the BBC reports, has changed her lawyers. She has not (SFAIK) yet appealed the second trial, which she is at liberty to try to do. If this happens it will enable a new set of eyes to look at things for the defence. So wait and see would be wise.

IANAL but as I understand it, convicts cannot appeal simply because they do not like the result, and evidence is not new simply because it was not presented at trial.

My own view is Letby may well be guilty of some but not all cases, which is not too far removed from the prosecution case if you think about it, but that something needs to be done about repeated misuse of probability and statistics (and which presumably extends beyond trials even to taking investigations off the right path).

In her first trial, the jury found her guilty on 7 charges of murder, and 7 counts of attempted murder, but not guilty on 2 counts of attempted murder, and they were unable to reach a decision on 6 more counts of attempted murder.

The prosecution dropped 5 of the counts where the jury hadn't reached a decision. They only took 1 to re-trial, where they were successful in getting a guilty verdict.

Two points to add to this account. After the experience of the first trial the defence used the same strategy for the second - not calling expert evidence SFAIK. For this there will be reasons, and we are not entitled to find out what they are unless they choose to tell us!

Secondly, the defence is fully at liberty to seek to appeal the second trial, perhaps using some of the grounds of the first appeal, and any new ones they like. It is entirely from a standing start.

If they do appeal (new lawyers are said to be in place) and succeed on any ground at all, and the issues 'opened up', this would almost certainly open doors to seeking reevaluation of the first trial through the CCRC etc. Wait and see. I think the probability is low but not impossible.

George Mann
@sgfmann
·
26m
Sunday Express: WINTER FUEL STORM 'IS LABOUR'S POLL' #TomorrowsPapersToday

algarkirk said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Calls to free Lucy Letby fuelled by ‘lies and misinformation’, say parents

Victims’ families tell The Sunday Times that the campaign to free killer nurse has made them question humanity

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-baby-parents-conviction-innocent-kpsdgwpbb

And IMHO the families are absolutely right.

BTW It is noticeable (I think) that the journalists etc who sat through the trial have not been vocal in condemning it.

We've had lots of people on here egging this on including a handful of respected regulars, which surprised me.

Actual questions have been raised which need answers.

Neither the New Yorker nor the Guardian are alt-right hate rags.

It’s worth remembering that families were used to defend previous convictions which turned out to not be safe.

Four points from this.

1) Being precise, which questions, how framed, and how related to the evidence in the trial, giving rise to what area of arguable appeal?

2) Yes; innocent people have been convicted. The families point applies equally to every case with a victim there has ever been where the defendant says they did not do it. There is no particularity about this to the Letby case

3) I have read the New Yorker article. It is journalism, not serious analysis of the evidence and its weight

4) Lots of people refer to unused defence expert evidence as if this demonstrates something. Like me they have not seen it so they can't know.

A small fifth point. Letby, the BBC reports, has changed her lawyers. She has not (SFAIK) yet appealed the second trial, which she is at liberty to try to do. If this happens it will enable a new set of eyes to look at things for the defence. So wait and see would be wise.

IANAL but as I understand it, convicts cannot appeal simply because they do not like the result, and evidence is not new simply because it was not presented at trial.

My own view is Letby may well be guilty of some but not all cases, which is not too far removed from the prosecution case if you think about it, but that something needs to be done about repeated misuse of probability and statistics (and which presumably extends beyond trials even to taking investigations off the right path).

Yes (you need arguable grounds or reasons for appealing). And yes (simplifying slightly), it is not generally permitted in appeals to introduce evidence which was or could have been available at trial. Litigation has to encourage being able to reach finality.

As to probability and stats, this is interesting, but no use unless someone can frame a 'ground of appeal' in a precise point as to what it is exactly that has been misused or gone wrong, not generally in cases, but in this case and this set of alleged facts in particular.

I don't know, I wasn't there and have an open mind. I have as yet read nothing which amounts to anything reasoned or precise, with lots of voices repeating the same generalisations, and no-one getting to an exact point, and the evidence from what I have gleaned (see the appeal and the judge's sentencing remarks) appears strong.

The critiques of the guilty verdicts tend to try and pick holes in individuals issues, but just ignore how there were multiple lines of evidence. Her defenders don't talk about her twice being observed in suspicious circumstances (a mother heard her baby scream and walked in to see Letby with the baby, with blood around the baby's mouth; a consultant walked in to see a baby desaturating with Letby standing there not doing anything). She falsified records so it would appear she was not present for some crises. She stole medical records from the hospital. She contradicted herself on the stand. (The defence offered explanations for these things, of course. The juries made their minds up.)

The whole WFA thing seems to me a mystery.

Why announce it in July - outside of the fuller Budget on 30th Oct?

What was the point?

Just looks like Reeves was talked into it by bean counting and narrow-minded Treasury officials who wanted cuts asap and she thought it would look good to be grappling with the issues and making these "difficult decisions" that Starmer keeps on about.

Politically it is utterly stupid.

Why die on this hill?

If it is a cold winter then Starmer is going to bitterly regret not getting involved in the economic stuff.

rottenborough said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

George Mann
@sgfmann
·
26m
Sunday Express: WINTER FUEL STORM 'IS LABOUR'S POLL' #TomorrowsPapersToday

Is that missing a ‘tax’ somewhere’?

Yes. George Mann typo.

Makes more sense then. And ‘no’ is the answer.

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

To be clear, I won't be voting in the leadership. There is just such a collective lack of self-awareness amongst those standing. They are the problem. There is nobody there who will enthuse the public to vote for them, even if Starmer crashes and burns.

As I told my (ex)MP, the best bet is probably to put Cleverly in charge, on the basis that he will oversee a two or three year beauty parade, where some new talent can develop their own manifesto to attract the lost voters.

On that latter point, isn't the truth that the party doesn't understand - or even accept - that it has lost the voters? On the outside I look at the contest and sit agog at the complete lack of self-awareness. Its not just that you got demolished, its *why* you got demolished.

If the Tories want to return to Conservatism - sound finance, pro business, internationalist - then Labour are there begging to be attacked. But instead of that, there seems to be this desperate push to go further down the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole that got you first hated and then demolished.

I don't get it.

Conservatism isn't internationalist; that's a Labour/LD philosophy.

It isn't "nationalist" either - or isolationist - it's about constructively engaging with other nations with the British national interest at heart and robustly defending those interests.

I would argue that a rules based international order is a conservative value. (Or maybe it's simply a recognition that medium sized, open economies, are the ones which benefit most.)

The balance of powers is a conservative value.

First we got the bomb and that was good,
because we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb but that's ok,
because they balance of power is maintained that way.

Whose next?

Hazel O'connor?

FF43 said:

.

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

St Andrew’s seems quite nice in the soft September sun

Lots of quietly weeping mothers saying goodbye…

St Andrews is lovely. The East Neuk of Fife in general is very nice.

Oh, it's a much underestimated gem. High farming country with lovely shores. Even shopping in Cupar is a pleasure, with its yellow Old Red Sandstone buildings. And then there are the fishertowns and the views over to Angus and Lothian depending on where one is.

Was in St Andrews today for my wife's birthday. Was disappointingly misty and very busy as it is the first day of Freshers week. But we went to the Haar restaurant for lunch and had a quite fabulous meal and a rather decent bottle of wine.

Were we all in St Andrews today?

Not me. But my nephew started at the uni there today.

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

To be clear, I won't be voting in the leadership. There is just such a collective lack of self-awareness amongst those standing. They are the problem. There is nobody there who will enthuse the public to vote for them, even if Starmer crashes and burns.

As I told my (ex)MP, the best bet is probably to put Cleverly in charge, on the basis that he will oversee a two or three year beauty parade, where some new talent can develop their own manifesto to attract the lost voters.

On that latter point, isn't the truth that the party doesn't understand - or even accept - that it has lost the voters? On the outside I look at the contest and sit agog at the complete lack of self-awareness. Its not just that you got demolished, its *why* you got demolished.

If the Tories want to return to Conservatism - sound finance, pro business, internationalist - then Labour are there begging to be attacked. But instead of that, there seems to be this desperate push to go further down the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole that got you first hated and then demolished.

I don't get it.

Conservatism isn't internationalist; that's a Labour/LD philosophy.

It isn't "nationalist" either - or isolationist - it's about constructively engaging with other nations with the British national interest at heart and robustly defending those interests.

I would argue that a rules based international order is a conservative value. (Or maybe it's simply a recognition that medium sized, open economies, are the ones which benefit most.)

The balance of powers is a conservative value.

First we got the bomb and that was good,
because we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb but that's ok,
because they balance of power is maintained that way.

Whose next?

Hazel O'connor?

The Great and thankfully not yet Late Tom Lehrer.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

“Here, presented for the first time, is an exhaustive list of the previous GOP presidents, vice presidents and nominees to these posts who have publicly said they will be voting for Trump in November:

1. Sarah Palin.

That’s it. That’s the whole list.”
https://x.com/IanSams/status/1832398183034482946

It should be noted that the list of living former Republican presidents is:

1) George W. Bush.*

Living former nominees to the office:

1) Mitt Romney

Former vice presidents and nominees does extend to Quayle, Cheney, Palin, Ryan and Pence. But it's not a long list.

*If he wanted to be Machiavellian, he should endorse Trump and say he'd run the kind of Presidency Bush himself did.

Point of order: the assassination attempt on Donald J Trump was a failure, and therefore there is another living former Republican President. I would note that he has not disclosed how will be voting.

Slightly more concerningly, I read recently that the only serving VP to become President since 1836 was GWB's father, GHWB, who was of course VP to Reagan.

Several have tried including Gore, Humphries and Nixon (in 1960) but they all failed. History doesn't give a ringing endorsement to Harris. But hopefully this will simply allow @rcs1000 to bring out his favourite cartoon once again.

I’d assume they were mainly seeking a third term for the same party though

Here's Tom Lehrer's "Who's Next?", for anyone who hasn't heard it -- or would like to hear it again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJAD2csTQ8A

Women's US open final hotting up in set two.

(They did a whole national anthem / flag thing before the final, which was odd for tennis. Don't think it happens in the other grand slams.)

StillWaters said:

kinabalu said:

FF43 said:

.

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

St Andrew’s seems quite nice in the soft September sun

Lots of quietly weeping mothers saying goodbye…

St Andrews is lovely. The East Neuk of Fife in general is very nice.

Oh, it's a much underestimated gem. High farming country with lovely shores. Even shopping in Cupar is a pleasure, with its yellow Old Red Sandstone buildings. And then there are the fishertowns and the views over to Angus and Lothian depending on where one is.

Was in St Andrews today for my wife's birthday. Was disappointingly misty and very busy as it is the first day of Freshers week. But we went to the Haar restaurant for lunch and had a quite fabulous meal and a rather decent bottle of wine.

Were we all in St Andrews today?

Not me. But my nephew started at the uni there today.

If he meets @Leon’s daughter you might end up related…

Imagine the Bride's Father speech!!!!

Cats.

Theuniondivvie said:

Not now self assembling nano particles.

https://x.com/abridgen/status/1832476351267324172?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

If they did find self-assembling nano particles in vaccines, I would be very impressed. Did they also find a warp drive whilst they were there? Or was it just really tiny bits?

carnforth said:

Women's US open final hotting up in set two.

(They did a whole national anthem / flag thing before the final, which was odd for tennis. Don't think it happens in the other grand slams.)

Pergula just went from 0-3 down to 4-3 up in the second set.

nico679 said:

bondegezou said:

Trump would end sanctions on Russia: https://newrepublic.com/post/185652/trump-sanctions-promise-adviser-charged-russia-media

And yet some Tories who allegedly support Ukraine at the same time want a Trump win .

Well, people can prioritise the things they support, meaning when they clash some will fall by the wayside as being of lesser significance. Which conceptually is fine, so long as they acknowledge that clash when it occurs, not deny it is there.

ohnotnow said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

George Mann
@sgfmann
·
26m
Sunday Express: WINTER FUEL STORM 'IS LABOUR'S POLL' #TomorrowsPapersToday

Is that missing a ‘tax’ somewhere’?

Got to love a random copy'n'paste from, possibly, twitter with no link and no way of checking.

Currently twitter is back to just showing me a 'log in or sign up' page in any case.

Replace 'x.com' in any links with 'nitter.poast.org'

https://nitter.poast.org/sgfmann/status/1832514732433027525#m

viewcode said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Not now self assembling nano particles.

https://x.com/abridgen/status/1832476351267324172?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

If they did find self-assembling nano particles in vaccines, I would be very impressed. Did they also find a warp drive whilst they were there? Or was it just really tiny bits?

Self assembling nano warp drive, maybe?

Andy_JS said:

Strong words from the PM.

"The NHS in England has been "broken" by successive Conservative-led governments - and the state it is now in is "unforgiveable", Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.

In his first major interview in Downing Street, the prime minister said a review of the health service to be published on Thursday finds changes to the NHS were "hopelessly misconceived".

He said austerity in the coalition years, and then the Conservative government's handling of the pandemic, left the NHS in an "awful position"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1m0vxxk7yno

That doesn't make any sense since NHS spending has been protected. He's just warming us up for huge tax rises. I hope the public are not dumb enough to fall for this ruse.

viewcode said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Not now self assembling nano particles.

https://x.com/abridgen/status/1832476351267324172?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

If they did find self-assembling nano particles in vaccines, I would be very impressed. Did they also find a warp drive whilst they were there? Or was it just really tiny bits?

I wouldn't worry about self-assembling nano-particles too much.

Its the self-disassembling ones you have to worry about. Particularly when the disassembly is highly contagious and the mean generation time is short.

O/T

Predictions by JG Ballard.

"...Facebook (1977)
...memes and ideas going viral (1978)
...the real impact of the space program (1979)
...the selfie (1978)
...Netflix bingeing (1977)
...surveillance society (1974)
...Google (1971)
...the confrontational tone of public discourse (1974)
...surfing the web—and even reaches for the metaphor of an “information highway” (1979)"

https://www.honest-broker.com/p/how-did-a-censored-writer-from-the