Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
Davey saying something about Trump will get reported. Davey saying something about river pollution won't get reported.
We already have an European Army, it's called NATO
Just what I said yesterday and not sure why anyone would think differently
There's a massive issue now with command structures though surely?
We cannot have American military in the chain of command as it is quite clear that whatever their own personal views on the matter their commander in chief is now an ally of Russia and has no interest in protecting europe.
We do not know yet where Trump will stand not least because he has said he will do a deal with Putin but if Putin disagrees he will back Ukraine with military force
It is impossible to know what comes next but the US will still be a NATO member and support NATO countries that increase their defence spending
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
Kemi is obviously a bit rubbish. What I can’t fathom is the mind blowing gap between her opinion of her own talent and everyone else’s. She carries on like she thinks she’s Elvis. It’s bizarre.
She only had to be better than Jenrick to be leader. And she's that.
Would she have beaten Mordaunt though? Not a chance. With the Conservatives having historically so few seats, the likelihood of a safe-ish seat coming up any time soon is limited. Look to a grandee getting a peerage in the honours list. Maybe that is already in motion, if Penny is back being active.
I like Penny. She’s the only leader why might tempt me to vote Tory again (other than Jenrick if I’m utterly desperate)
She needs to drop the Woke shit. Everyone else is anyway - the pendulum is swinging. Get with the vibeshift. She’s got a sharp tongue and self confidence. She can hold a sword. Er, that’s it. But heck the Tories are not overstuffed with good contenders
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
And if the wet wing (who have reason to trust Johnson about as far as they can throw him, and all that muscle is heavy) don't want to respond to that welcome?
Kemi is obviously a bit rubbish. What I can’t fathom is the mind blowing gap between her opinion of her own talent and everyone else’s. She carries on like she thinks she’s Elvis. It’s bizarre.
She only had to be better than Jenrick to be leader. And she's that.
Would she have beaten Mordaunt though? Not a chance. With the Conservatives having historically so few seats, the likelihood of a safe-ish seat coming up any time soon is limited. Look to a grandee getting a peerage in the honours list. Maybe that is already in motion, if Penny is back being active.
I like Penny. She’s the only leader why might tempt me to vote Tory again (other than Jenrick if I’m utterly desperate)
She needs to drop the Woke shit. Everyone else is anyway - the pendulum is swinging. Get with the vibeshift. She’s got a sharp tongue and self confidence. She can hold a sword. Er, that’s it. But heck the Tories are not overstuffed with good contenders
She’d be a good centre right candidate
I agree with your analysis of her, but there was one thing missing and I can't remember why I think this, but from memory there was no depth to her, no detail. I agree though a very good speaker, sense of humour and very human.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
This sort of thinking is only appropriate if, in four years, they double down and don’t reverse course for the next eight.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
I think the Boris magic has long since gone. These days he resembles a down and out.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
How? Where? No constituencies till the next election (unless you count Scotland, Wales and IIRC London).
And the moment they become MPs they can vote him out of the leadership, which was presumably why he purged them.
If you want to tax assets, CGT when properties are sold is the obvious one. No issues with valuation and the money is there.
On primary residence? That would totally f*** labour mobility by meaning no home/mortgage owner ever moves home again, it's dis-incentivised already with fees and stamp duty.
The clever reform would be to charge CGT on primary residence (and IHT), but abolish Stamp Duty/LBTT entirely. Make it roughly fiscally neutral.
Then why bother?
Increase liquidity in the housing market, making more large homes available for young families and smaller homes for pensioners. Make investing in businesses relatively more attractive. Take some heat out of the market in Edinburgh/London.
I've made more from my flat price increasing than I have from saving from my salary. I should be taxed more on my property and less on my earnings.
House prices round here are at what to me are insane levels. Yet there's massive amounts of building.
Similar population to France. 8 million fewer homes.
I had a fun discussion the other day with a local “housing activist”. Was telling him about how, in other places, a house or flat can remain empty, because there are more than enough properties. Even decent ones sit empty. Because the market was in surplus.
Interesting because, it was like watching his mind expand.
For the umpteenth time, France has higher housing costs than we do.
Everywhere you actually look, even Paris vs London (where you have the national capital effects), France is cheaper for rental. Often massively.
What the stats how is, on average, the UK has lower mortgage costs, and slightly higher renting costs, than France, despite having 8 million fewer homes. It has significantly lower rates of overcrowding compared with France. For people on median and higher incomes, renting in the UK is cheaper.
That points to an issue with income inequality, not supply of housing. There is no guarantee that building 8 million homes would slow they widening gap. My parents would probably by 3 of them and rent them.out, bless.
I’d be interested to see such rental numbers - I’ve seen 50% less for equivalents between France and the U.K. in some areas
If your parents buy three of flats, there is no guarantee that someone will want to rent them at *any* price. Remember the fate of the Bunker Brothers….
A friend has a flat in Lyons. The particular suburb actually has a surplus of flats - occupancy is under 90%. So her nice flat sits there unoccupied. Because everyone wanting to rent a flat around there has one.
She could buy more flats, quite cheap.
That's the case in Greenock too, but we still have a housing crisis in Edinburgh, while the Scottish population is flat.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Really is time for Europe to massively increase defence spending. That will come with a cost welfare and pensions will have to be cut. But there is little choice.
Update: President Trump privately threatens to pull ALL US troops out of Europe if Ukraine and NATO don’t agree to our peace deal with Russia!
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
For his sort of thinking is only appropriate if, in four years, they double down and don’t reverse course for the next eight.
We should not assume that the US will ever have another free and fair federal election, nor that the Democrats will win. We should prepare for people worse than Trump to be in power.
If you want to tax assets, CGT when properties are sold is the obvious one. No issues with valuation and the money is there.
On primary residence? That would totally f*** labour mobility by meaning no home/mortgage owner ever moves home again, it's dis-incentivised already with fees and stamp duty.
The clever reform would be to charge CGT on primary residence (and IHT), but abolish Stamp Duty/LBTT entirely. Make it roughly fiscally neutral.
Then why bother?
Increase liquidity in the housing market, making more large homes available for young families and smaller homes for pensioners. Make investing in businesses relatively more attractive. Take some heat out of the market in Edinburgh/London.
I've made more from my flat price increasing than I have from saving from my salary. I should be taxed more on my property and less on my earnings.
House prices round here are at what to me are insane levels. Yet there's massive amounts of building.
Similar population to France. 8 million fewer homes.
I had a fun discussion the other day with a local “housing activist”. Was telling him about how, in other places, a house or flat can remain empty, because there are more than enough properties. Even decent ones sit empty. Because the market was in surplus.
Interesting because, it was like watching his mind expand.
For the umpteenth time, France has higher housing costs than we do.
Everywhere you actually look, even Paris vs London (where you have the national capital effects), France is cheaper for rental. Often massively.
What the stats how is, on average, the UK has lower mortgage costs, and slightly higher renting costs, than France, despite having 8 million fewer homes. It has significantly lower rates of overcrowding compared with France. For people on median and higher incomes, renting in the UK is cheaper.
That points to an issue with income inequality, not supply of housing. There is no guarantee that building 8 million homes would slow they widening gap. My parents would probably by 3 of them and rent them.out, bless.
I’d be interested to see such rental numbers - I’ve seen 50% less for equivalents between France and the U.K. in some areas
If your parents buy three of flats, there is no guarantee that someone will want to rent them at *any* price. Remember the fate of the Bunker Brothers….
A friend has a flat in Lyons. The particular suburb actually has a surplus of flats - occupancy is under 90%. So her nice flat sits there unoccupied. Because everyone wanting to rent a flat around there has one.
She could buy more flats, quite cheap.
That's the case in Greenock too, but we still have a housing crisis in Edinburgh, while the Scottish population is flat.
Not many AirBNB flats in Greenock, but too many in Edinburgh, is another factor (so to speak).
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
Thank god the UK is merely governed by a traitor, eh?
Traitor? You can Fuck all the way to Florida Keys with that.
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
I think the Boris magic has long since gone. These days he resembles a down and out.
Yes Boris may have been ok in 2019 but people want a more serious Trump like figure now not a total clown.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
I assume Jenrick’s personal hygiene is somewhat better than Trump’s. He looks freshly washed. So there’s that. More of a Vance, maybe.
Yes, he looks technically spotless. "Oily" is perhaps the word. You just wouldn't trust the guy. Not with money, not with a secret, not with your vote. I know I wouldn't. My alt right side vastly prefers Nigel Farage.
We already have an European Army, it's called NATO
Just what I said yesterday and not sure why anyone would think differently
NATO is USA, Canada and Europe.
If it becomes necessary to distance ourselves from the USA (because their government has gone utterly tonto and cannot be trusted), you end up with a European army by elimination. Plus Canada, if we want to offer them a security guarantee.
Not sure we're there yet, but we're clearly too close for comfort. And best to be prepared.
I don't think one can conjure up a new army in less than a few years, by which time Trump will be about to retire (I don't expect the constitutional bar on a third term to go anywhere).
That said, placing all our trust in American alliance is clearly unwise. Working to make NATO more flexible, so that a majority of members can form effective task forces, seems a realistic option.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
No one who knows anything about the practicalities wants to use a mechanism other than NATO, for a million practical and logistical reasons. Note what even the French and EU are saying. This isn’t the time to bring that structure tumbling down. It would be the right basis even if the yanks withdrew altogether.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
I assume Jenrick’s personal hygiene is somewhat better than Trump’s. He looks freshly washed. So there’s that. More of a Vance, maybe.
Yes, he looks technically spotless. "Oily" is perhaps the word. You just wouldn't trust the guy. Not with money, not with a secret, not with your vote. I know I wouldn't. My alt right side vastly prefers Nigel Farage.
I agree. Good point.
Oh shit, have I messed up?
I do agree with you on some things Kinabalu. Even the biggest imbecile can occasionally make a good point.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
That's true, and why I couldn't (and didn't) vote for him.
You managed to be quite happy in a party with Osborne, Cameron, Gove, Cummings, and a whole host of other pond life, so its a bit much to try to pass off your poor judgement as some sort of moral stand.
Question though, from someone who is clearly not the target audience.
Faced with a choice of a hard right Jenrick, who does things in the style of the steely eyed Tory boy, or a hard right Farage, who does things in the style of the bloke down the pub, isn’t there always going to be one answer?
I have never thought this was about personality - we have gone beyond that. This is about who will make you poor and give you a shit life on the altar of diversity and Net Zero and who won't. It is retail politics. Jenrick was all about policy in his leadership campaign, Kemi was about the strength of her personality alone. She may have a strong personality, but it's absolutely not been enough. Her shadow Government is merely the twitching entrails of the Sunak Government, with Jenrick being the one bright spot. I don’t put the blame solely on her - she hasn't had any support. The Tory tribe that put her where she is has no idea how to make a good leader, just rip down leaders.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
For his sort of thinking is only appropriate if, in four years, they double down and don’t reverse course for the next eight.
We should not assume that the US will ever have another free and fair federal election, nor that the Democrats will win. We should prepare for people worse than Trump to be in power.
Patience is a virtue. When the stakes are this high, you need real strategic patience and cool heads.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe, allowing Europeans to rebuild their own defenses, invest in their own high-tech defense industries, and defend their own democracies without being subverted by the USA. It wont be easy and it will require a great deal of investment—but it might be for the best.
And it's also why Trump's expectation - that Europe spending more on defence means more military contracts for US-built equipment - will surely not come to pass. If anything, I'd expect the opposite as Europe on-shores its defence capabilities or partners with more reliable allies like Japan.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
Not entirely true, on the latest Yougov 11% of 2024 LDs have switched to the Kemi Tories and just 5% of 2024 Tories have gone LD.
By contrast 23% of 2024 Conservatives have gone Reform and just 4% of 2024 Reform voters have gone Tory. So Kemi clearly does have some appeal to LDs which say Jenrick wouldn't but she also has less appeal to Reform voters than Jenrick might
Re the first sentence - Why do you, or anyone, think that is? It doesn't make any sense to me. My only thought is ex Tories who wanted to swap to Labour (but had to vote tactically for the LDs) to get rid of the Tories at the GE are now unhappy with Labour so are returning to the Tories. But that seems a bit convoluted.
I just reread what I said and could see it could be misread as not believing you. I wasn't challenging the validity of what you said @HYUFD . I am sure it is accurate. I just couldn't work out why it was accurate and wondered if you or anyone else had any thought as to how it came about. My one and only explanation seemed a bit contrived by me.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
Not a lot. But I appear to have a better understanding than Lord Dannatt of the potential threat that Trump poses. A defence agreement that relies heavily on a partner that can not be trusted at all is worthless.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
I assume Jenrick’s personal hygiene is somewhat better than Trump’s. He looks freshly washed. So there’s that. More of a Vance, maybe.
Yes, he looks technically spotless. "Oily" is perhaps the word. You just wouldn't trust the guy. Not with money, not with a secret, not with your vote. I know I wouldn't. My alt right side vastly prefers Nigel Farage.
I agree. Good point.
Oh shit, have I messed up?
I do agree with you on some things Kinabalu. Even the biggest imbecile can occasionally make a good point.
Well I haven't seen one from you yet. But it could be just round the corner, I suppose.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
Davey saying something about Trump will get reported. Davey saying something about river pollution won't get reported.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
You can’t expect them to understand anything as vulgar as fractions…
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
No one who knows anything about the practicalities wants to use a mechanism other than NATO, for a million practical and logistical reasons. Note what even the French and EU are saying. This isn’t the time to bring that structure tumbling down. It would be the right basis even if the yanks withdrew altogether.
Relying on NATO is relying on a US that might simply decide not to turn up when it hits the fan. How much clearer does it need to get?
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
Not a lot. But I appear to have a better understanding than Lord Dannatt of the potential threat that Trump poses. A defence agreement that relies heavily on a partner that can not be trusted at all is worthless.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
I assume Jenrick’s personal hygiene is somewhat better than Trump’s. He looks freshly washed. So there’s that. More of a Vance, maybe.
Yes, he looks technically spotless. "Oily" is perhaps the word. You just wouldn't trust the guy. Not with money, not with a secret, not with your vote. I know I wouldn't. My alt right side vastly prefers Nigel Farage.
I agree. Good point.
Oh shit, have I messed up?
I do agree with you on some things Kinabalu. Even the biggest imbecile can occasionally make a good point.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
Not a lot. But I appear to have a better understanding than Lord Dannatt of the potential threat that Trump poses. A defence agreement that relies heavily on a partner that can not be trusted at all is worthless.
I very much doubt you do have a better knowledge than Lord Dannatt on this subject, and I expect all the leaders tomorrow at the meeting in Paris to affirm their support for NATO and commit to increased spending
Indeed Starmer seems to want to position himself as being the one to bring both sides together
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
By all means do a first draft but I'm not bullish about placing it.
Really is time for Europe to massively increase defence spending. That will come with a cost welfare and pensions will have to be cut. But there is little choice.
Update: President Trump privately threatens to pull ALL US troops out of Europe if Ukraine and NATO don’t agree to our peace deal with Russia!
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
No one who knows anything about the practicalities wants to use a mechanism other than NATO, for a million practical and logistical reasons. Note what even the French and EU are saying. This isn’t the time to bring that structure tumbling down. It would be the right basis even if the yanks withdrew altogether.
Relying on NATO is relying on a US that might simply decide not to turn up when it hits the fan. How much clearer does it need to get?
It is only relying on the U.S. to the extent we just don’t have some of the capabilities they lend to NATO. So if you want to operate without them, the quickest and most efficient answer is to jointly invest in those capabilities to fill those specific gaps. Creating a whole new structure from scratch would take longer, cost more, and distract.
That’s why the EU and even the French agree with me.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
No one who knows anything about the practicalities wants to use a mechanism other than NATO, for a million practical and logistical reasons. Note what even the French and EU are saying. This isn’t the time to bring that structure tumbling down. It would be the right basis even if the yanks withdrew altogether.
A European force can use that NATO structure, but they’ll have to work around US involvement. But a European force/coalition/army (call it what you will), independent of US influence, is likely to be essential for the next four years at least.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
I don't know enough about the case to have a firm view, but the number of serious people saying the conviction is unsafe suggests that the "reasonable doubt" threshold has been passed.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
A man who was coasting to becoming the next PM has to make sure Trump doesn't mess everything up for him at the last minute.
As for Braverman/Truss types, they are out of step even with most Conservatives. They could easily say basically the same things with less Trump worshipfulness, there may be a larger market for Trump-like ideas without attaching themselves to his personality, which plays worse over here than there.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
Obvious to you @No_Offence_Alan, but not to most people, including 75% of GPs, who are not generally stupid.
Now most people assume that if the test is 95% accurate and they are positive then it must be 95% sure they have the disease.
She gave the example of 1 person in a 1000 having the disease. Testing them would produce 50 false positives so the chances of you having the disease would then only be around 2%.
I think at least 11 out of 12 on a jury would go for 95% initially and even after an explanation I don't think half would have a clue why that isn't correct.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
Not entirely. Given the state of the NHS, most tests aren't done unless one has overt symptoms. Edit: so there's much more risk than in a truly random population sample. And then if the test came back positive you'd usually do more tests, refer to a hospital consultant specialist, etc. etc. So, in practical terms, the GPs are more sensible than it would seem, if erring on the side of caution.
Even so, that sort of thinking is not good enough - there or in a court of law.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
And Lord Dannatt’s political nous is ?
Seems he is very pro Europe as commented earlier but he rejected Zelensky's claim for an European Army this morning in the media
Indeed I haven't heard any leader suggest leaving NATO is the answer, more increased spending by NATO members seems to be the concensus
Really is time for Europe to massively increase defence spending. That will come with a cost welfare and pensions will have to be cut. But there is little choice.
Update: President Trump privately threatens to pull ALL US troops out of Europe if Ukraine and NATO don’t agree to our peace deal with Russia!
Does the US pulling all its troops out of Europe hurt the US or Europe more?
It certainly reduces the US' military reach.
Doesn't seem very helpful for them in the long run to actually pull out, even if getting us to pay more towards our own defence helps.
Lord knows what we will stop doing to pay for more Defence spending, as pretty much all parties promised already, as the easy political choices are already taken up.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21. For a false positive.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
I think the Boris magic has long since gone. These days he resembles a down and out.
Really is time for Europe to massively increase defence spending. That will come with a cost welfare and pensions will have to be cut. But there is little choice.
Update: President Trump privately threatens to pull ALL US troops out of Europe if Ukraine and NATO don’t agree to our peace deal with Russia!
Does the US pulling all its troops out of Europe hurt the US or Europe more?
It certainly reduces the US' military reach.
Doesn't seem very helpful for them in the long run to actually pull out, even if getting us to pay more towards our own defence helps.
Lord knows what we will stop doing to pay for more Defence spending, as pretty much all parties promised already, as the easy political choices are already taken up.
Maybe the voters have to stop behaving like kids and accept some real pain.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
Thank god the UK is merely governed by a traitor, eh?
Traitor? You can Fuck all the way to Florida Keys with that.
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
Relying upon a single European army would be utterly crazy and making the same mistake as relying upon a single American army. We would just be replacing a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Security is safest when there is no solitary critical control point that can fail. Swiss cheese model of layers of defence.
That is possible through NATO. European nations, coalitions of willing nation states, working together cooperative but independently.
That way if one or more European leaders turn out to be unreliable then they can't hold back everyone else.
Redundancy and duplications are a strength not a weakness in Defence.
Austria attack that killed teen linked to IS, officials say
Interior Minister Gerhard Karner said an Islamic State group flag had been found in his apartment, while state police chief Michaela Kohlweiss said he had sworn allegiance to the group.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
I don't know enough about the case to have a firm view, but the number of serious people saying the conviction is unsafe suggests that the "reasonable doubt" threshold has been passed.
I don't see how that follows at all. Just because some people have voiced concerns, having looked at some but not all of the evidence, doesn't mean we should presume the trial and jury made a mistake.
Obviously wrongful convictions happen and people need to be alive to the possibility, but what we've seen so far appears to be mostly media noise. If the legal team think the additional commentary is legally persuasive to either overturn things or get another look then with a high profile case like this the system will probably not let it sit for a long time either.
So rather than leap to assuming there is now reasonable doubt, waiting to see what the legal team actually file (rather than brief at press events) seems wise.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
Davey saying something about Trump will get reported. Davey saying something about river pollution won't get reported.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
You can’t expect them to understand anything as vulgar as fractions…
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
No one who knows anything about the practicalities wants to use a mechanism other than NATO, for a million practical and logistical reasons. Note what even the French and EU are saying. This isn’t the time to bring that structure tumbling down. It would be the right basis even if the yanks withdrew altogether.
A European force can use that NATO structure, but they’ll have to work around US involvement. But a European force/coalition/army (call it what you will), independent of US influence, is likely to be essential for the next four years at least.
I am not opposed to a European army if that's what they want. I am utterly opposed to the UK being part of it.
In the long term it makes sense for the EU to embrace Russia - the EU gets access to vast natural resources, a space programme, a nuclear programme, and Russia gets (a bit more) respectability, better governance (I think the EU is appallingly governed but it beats Russia), and healthier business practises. En bloc, the Eurasian Union would be powerful enough to hold its own with the US and China, though never powerful enough to overtake either.
The UK wouldn't need to join, we have all the energy resources we need, we have all the good governance we need (after this lot have been booted out) and with positive relationships with all, particularly the anglosphere and Commonwealth, we could thrive and prosper.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
And Lord Dannatt’s political nous is ?
Seems he is very pro Europe as commented earlier but he rejected Zelensky's claim for an European Army this morning in the media
Indeed I haven't heard any leader suggest leaving NATO is the answer, more increased spending by NATO members seems to be the concensus
It's a timing thing, I'd say. If this Trumpite version is how America is going to be from now on it means our Direction of Travel is European Army. But it won't be happening in time for Ukraine. That will need some NATO.
Really is time for Europe to massively increase defence spending. That will come with a cost welfare and pensions will have to be cut. But there is little choice.
Update: President Trump privately threatens to pull ALL US troops out of Europe if Ukraine and NATO don’t agree to our peace deal with Russia!
Does the US pulling all its troops out of Europe hurt the US or Europe more?
It certainly reduces the US' military reach.
Doesn't seem very helpful for them in the long run to actually pull out, even if getting us to pay more towards our own defence helps.
Lord knows what we will stop doing to pay for more Defence spending, as pretty much all parties promised already, as the easy political choices are already taken up.
Maybe the voters have to stop behaving like kids and accept some real pain.
One day perhaps. But it is not this day I think, nor any day in the near future - we are a long way from accepting the realities of what is available to us with economic growth and rising costs.
With defence spending presumably a bigger worry is a lot of it would be wasted on white elephants anyway.
Austria attack that killed teen linked to IS, officials say
Interior Minister Gerhard Karner said an Islamic State group flag had been found in his apartment, while state police chief Michaela Kohlweiss said he had sworn allegiance to the group.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe, allowing Europeans to rebuild their own defenses, invest in their own high-tech defense industries, and defend their own democracies without being subverted by the USA. It wont be easy and it will require a great deal of investment—but it might be for the best.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
I think the Boris magic has long since gone. These days he resembles a down and out.
I think the manner of his exit and followup actions was significant. He just kind of...gave up. He could have forced them to suspend him, seem if he could have survived a recall by-election, but he didn't. And not to play it cool and bide his time, maybe burnish his statesman credentials. Just to write for a newspaper about, well, any old thing.
I could be wrong of course, but I feel like his heart is no longer in the game.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe, allowing Europeans to rebuild their own defenses, invest in their own high-tech defense industries, and defend their own democracies without being subverted by the USA. It wont be easy and it will require a great deal of investment—but it might be for the best.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
Kemi is obviously a bit rubbish. What I can’t fathom is the mind blowing gap between her opinion of her own talent and everyone else’s. She carries on like she thinks she’s Elvis. It’s bizarre.
She only had to be better than Jenrick to be leader. And she's that.
Would she have beaten Mordaunt though? Not a chance. With the Conservatives having historically so few seats, the likelihood of a safe-ish seat coming up any time soon is limited. Look to a grandee getting a peerage in the honours list. Maybe that is already in motion, if Penny is back being active.
I like Penny. She’s the only leader why might tempt me to vote Tory again (other than Jenrick if I’m utterly desperate)
She needs to drop the Woke shit. Everyone else is anyway - the pendulum is swinging. Get with the vibeshift. She’s got a sharp tongue and self confidence. She can hold a sword. Er, that’s it. But heck the Tories are not overstuffed with good contenders
She’d be a good centre right candidate
I agree with your analysis of her, but there was one thing missing and I can't remember why I think this, but from memory there was no depth to her, no detail. I agree though a very good speaker, sense of humour and very human.
For Penny to be elected, a Tory MP in a very safe seat will need to fall on their sword.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
I’m sure it’s just my TDS, but I think Trump is proving to be exactly as bad as we said he was going to be and people who acted like we were hysterical should be embarrassed they didn’t do more to try and stop it.
I think if anything he's actually been worse than I was expecting.
I did expect him to do down Ukraine, steal loads of money, try to get his fellow criminals off from punishment and ignore all constitutional requirements.
I didn't expect him to fire all nuclear safety inspectors through sheer incompetence.
Trump 1 was actually pretty mild. Yes he made a lot of offensive tweets but he didnt do much real damage. This time he is doing real damage.
He's learned how to use his actual power this time. And is bitter and angry enough at so many people that he is willing to use it pretty indiscriminately (he is in a rush I suppose, being Biden-esque in age and mental state).
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Yes, the PPV (positive predictive value) of a test depends on the prevalence in the population, this publication deals with the maths.
If you want to tax assets, CGT when properties are sold is the obvious one. No issues with valuation and the money is there.
On primary residence? That would totally f*** labour mobility by meaning no home/mortgage owner ever moves home again, it's dis-incentivised already with fees and stamp duty.
The clever reform would be to charge CGT on primary residence (and IHT), but abolish Stamp Duty/LBTT entirely. Make it roughly fiscally neutral.
Then why bother?
Increase liquidity in the housing market, making more large homes available for young families and smaller homes for pensioners. Make investing in businesses relatively more attractive. Take some heat out of the market in Edinburgh/London.
I've made more from my flat price increasing than I have from saving from my salary. I should be taxed more on my property and less on my earnings.
House prices round here are at what to me are insane levels. Yet there's massive amounts of building.
Similar population to France. 8 million fewer homes.
I had a fun discussion the other day with a local “housing activist”. Was telling him about how, in other places, a house or flat can remain empty, because there are more than enough properties. Even decent ones sit empty. Because the market was in surplus.
Interesting because, it was like watching his mind expand.
For the umpteenth time, France has higher housing costs than we do.
Everywhere you actually look, even Paris vs London (where you have the national capital effects), France is cheaper for rental. Often massively.
What the stats how is, on average, the UK has lower mortgage costs, and slightly higher renting costs, than France, despite having 8 million fewer homes. It has significantly lower rates of overcrowding compared with France. For people on median and higher incomes, renting in the UK is cheaper.
That points to an issue with income inequality, not supply of housing. There is no guarantee that building 8 million homes would slow they widening gap. My parents would probably by 3 of them and rent them.out, bless.
I’d be interested to see such rental numbers - I’ve seen 50% less for equivalents between France and the U.K. in some areas
If your parents buy three of flats, there is no guarantee that someone will want to rent them at *any* price. Remember the fate of the Bunker Brothers….
A friend has a flat in Lyons. The particular suburb actually has a surplus of flats - occupancy is under 90%. So her nice flat sits there unoccupied. Because everyone wanting to rent a flat around there has one.
She could buy more flats, quite cheap.
That's the case in Greenock too, but we still have a housing crisis in Edinburgh, while the Scottish population is flat.
Where would I prefer to live? Greenock or Lyon? Scratches chin and ponders.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
I think the Boris magic has long since gone. These days he resembles a down and out.
You think he didn't before?
Actually Boris still has some magic. In the latest polls, IIRC, he has a higher favourability rating than any other politician in the UK (also very high negatives, but he has always been avo and marmite). This does not please me, after the Boriswave I want him gone from British politics for eternity, but it is a fact
Fuck knows who these people are, that still like and admire him, but they definitely exist
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
Thank god the UK is merely governed by a traitor, eh?
Traitor? You can Fuck all the way to Florida Keys with that.
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
ooh, that stung! I’m like a wasp at a picnic, me
He is still a traitor
Couldn't care a jot what you think. The fact is you hate your country and genuflect to foreign strongmen. Someone like that (esp the last bit) does not get to call other people traitors.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
He destroyed it so effectively is was in power for 14 years, increasing its majority at two of those elections. He damaged it so extensively it could well be back in Government in 2029.
I’m sure it’s just my TDS, but I think Trump is proving to be exactly as bad as we said he was going to be and people who acted like we were hysterical should be embarrassed they didn’t do more to try and stop it.
I think if anything he's actually been worse than I was expecting.
I did expect him to do down Ukraine, steal loads of money, try to get his fellow criminals off from punishment and ignore all constitutional requirements.
I didn't expect him to fire all nuclear safety inspectors through sheer incompetence.
Trump 1 was actually pretty mild. Yes he made a lot of offensive tweets but he didnt do much real damage. This time he is doing real damage.
He's learned how to use his actual power this time. And is bitter and angry enough at so many people that he is willing to use it pretty indiscriminately (he is in a rush I suppose, being Biden-esque in age and mental state).
Don't believe the silly equivocation. Trump isn't even approaching Biden levels fo senility.
Really is time for Europe to massively increase defence spending. That will come with a cost welfare and pensions will have to be cut. But there is little choice.
Update: President Trump privately threatens to pull ALL US troops out of Europe if Ukraine and NATO don’t agree to our peace deal with Russia!
Does the US pulling all its troops out of Europe hurt the US or Europe more?
It certainly reduces the US' military reach.
Doesn't seem very helpful for them in the long run to actually pull out, even if getting us to pay more towards our own defence helps.
Lord knows what we will stop doing to pay for more Defence spending, as pretty much all parties promised already, as the easy political choices are already taken up.
Maybe the voters have to stop behaving like kids and accept some real pain.
Oh ok you've done it. That's a point with legs and half a face.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Is your original post misphrased in some way? Because if you do have a positive test when the false positive rate is 5% it is in fact 95% (well, 95.2%) probable you have the disease.
I’m sure it’s just my TDS, but I think Trump is proving to be exactly as bad as we said he was going to be and people who acted like we were hysterical should be embarrassed they didn’t do more to try and stop it.
I think if anything he's actually been worse than I was expecting.
I did expect him to do down Ukraine, steal loads of money, try to get his fellow criminals off from punishment and ignore all constitutional requirements.
I didn't expect him to fire all nuclear safety inspectors through sheer incompetence.
Trump 1 was actually pretty mild. Yes he made a lot of offensive tweets but he didnt do much real damage. This time he is doing real damage.
He's learned how to use his actual power this time. And is bitter and angry enough at so many people that he is willing to use it pretty indiscriminately (he is in a rush I suppose, being Biden-esque in age and mental state).
Don't believe the silly equivocation. Trump isn't even approaching Biden levels fo senility.
It’s hard to tell. The difference is that Trump has always been nuts.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
No this is wrong Nigel. And this shows how hard it is for people to grasp.
The question makes no mention of how common the disease is. The test will always however produce 5% false positives.
So if the disease is very common say 1 in 10 and you tested 100 people you will get 10 accurate positive tests and 5 false tests. So you will be 66.67% sure you have the disease.
If the disease is very rare, say 1 in 1,000,000 then if you test 100 people you will likely get 0 accurate positive tests, but still 5 false tests, so even though you have tested positive you are almost certainly sure you don't have the disease. If you did test 1,000,000 people the ratio would be 1/50,000 or 0.002%
There is a hell of a difference between 66.67% and 0.002% so the frequency of the disease in the population is critical.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Is your original post misphrased in some way? Because if you do have a positive test when the false positive rate is 5% it is in fact 95% (well, 95.2%) probable you have the disease.
Nope. Gosh this is interesting. See my other posts.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
Thank god the UK is merely governed by a traitor, eh?
Traitor? You can Fuck all the way to Florida Keys with that.
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
ooh, that stung! I’m like a wasp at a picnic, me
He is still a traitor
Couldn't care a jot what you think. The fact is you hate your country and genuflect to foreign strongmen. Someone like that (esp the last bit) does not get to call other people traitors.
I’m sorry if I upset you, you pitiful, etiolated, golf playing wanker-in-closets, because I’m actually kind of fond of you
Nonetheless it must be said, more in sorrow than anger, that a man who conspires to hand over a chunk of his nation’s sovereign territory, against all advice, and contrives to make his countrymen PAY for this - in the billions - and who does it in a way which will directly benefit his close friends financially…. is a traitor. What other words covers what Sir Sheer Wanker is doing? It is hard to find a clearer example of national betrayal in modern British politics, but maybe the PB historians can find such
I’m sure it’s just my TDS, but I think Trump is proving to be exactly as bad as we said he was going to be and people who acted like we were hysterical should be embarrassed they didn’t do more to try and stop it.
I think if anything he's actually been worse than I was expecting.
I did expect him to do down Ukraine, steal loads of money, try to get his fellow criminals off from punishment and ignore all constitutional requirements.
I didn't expect him to fire all nuclear safety inspectors through sheer incompetence.
Trump 1 was actually pretty mild. Yes he made a lot of offensive tweets but he didnt do much real damage. This time he is doing real damage.
He's learned how to use his actual power this time. And is bitter and angry enough at so many people that he is willing to use it pretty indiscriminately (he is in a rush I suppose, being Biden-esque in age and mental state).
Don't believe the silly equivocation. Trump isn't even approaching Biden levels fo senility.
I don't think he is as senile, but I do think he is unstable, and his sheer age means in that job he will deterioriate. Don't believe the other silly equivocation that Trump is somehow as sharp as he ever used to be despite being older than Biden was at this point.
Comments
Davey saying something about river pollution won't get reported.
It is impossible to know what comes next but the US will still be a NATO member and support NATO countries that increase their defence spending
A good piece in the Guardian amplifying Cyclefree’s concerns re the scrutiny of the Assisted Dying Bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/16/voices-that-oppose-the-assisted-dying-bill-arent-noise-they-are-vital-scrutiny
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left
- Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform
- Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
She needs to drop the Woke shit. Everyone else is anyway - the pendulum is swinging. Get with the vibeshift. She’s got a sharp tongue and self confidence. She can hold a sword. Er, that’s it. But heck the Tories are not overstuffed with good contenders
She’d be a good centre right candidate
Leon roams beneath the endless sky,
From city lights to mountains high,
His feet have kissed the dust of lands,
And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams,
Tasted spices in faraway dreams,
Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace,
Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands,
It’s a longing carried in his hands.
Through crowded markets, silent roads,
He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain,
Each journey leaves a subtle stain,
A memory in his wandering soul,
But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound,
With horizons stretching all around,
A nomad’s heart, a restless flame,
No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay,
And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway,
Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free,
As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies,
Wherever the road meets his tired eyes,
Home is a word he’s yet to find,
For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
This is absolutely insane:
Since DOGE began discussing mass layoffs, the median home price in Washington DC has FALLEN by -$139,000.
In 30 days, nearly 4,000 homes have been listed for sale in and around Washington DC.
https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1890815411907674372
Not the same thing, but...
And the moment they become MPs they can vote him out of the leadership, which was presumably why he purged them.
Update: President Trump privately threatens to pull ALL US troops out of Europe if Ukraine and NATO don’t agree to our peace deal with Russia!
https://x.com/defense_civil25/status/1890894134337994889
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
That said, placing all our trust in American alliance is clearly unwise. Working to make NATO more flexible, so that a majority of members can form effective task forces, seems a realistic option.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/15/canada-conservatives-trump-00204536
And it's also why Trump's expectation - that Europe spending more on defence means more military contracts for US-built equipment - will surely not come to pass. If anything, I'd expect the opposite as Europe on-shores its defence capabilities or partners with more reliable allies like Japan.
Indeed Starmer seems to want to position himself as being the one to bring both sides together
It certainly reduces the US' military reach.
That’s why the EU and even the French agree with me.
But a European force/coalition/army (call it what you will), independent of US influence, is likely to be essential for the next four years at least.
As for Braverman/Truss types, they are out of step even with most Conservatives. They could easily say basically the same things with less Trump worshipfulness, there may be a larger market for Trump-like ideas without attaching themselves to his personality, which plays worse over here than there.
Now most people assume that if the test is 95% accurate and they are positive then it must be 95% sure they have the disease.
She gave the example of 1 person in a 1000 having the disease. Testing them would produce 50 false positives so the chances of you having the disease would then only be around 2%.
I think at least 11 out of 12 on a jury would go for 95% initially and even after an explanation I don't think half would have a clue why that isn't correct.
Just one day after announcing the birth of Musk’s 13th child, she is now pressing the billionaire to uphold their co-parenting agreement.
https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1890975215460528230
Elon doesnt seem to pick his wimen very well.
Even so, that sort of thinking is not good enough - there or in a court of law.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Indeed I haven't heard any leader suggest leaving NATO is the answer, more increased spending by NATO members seems to be the concensus
Lord knows what we will stop doing to pay for more Defence spending, as pretty much all parties promised already, as the easy political choices are already taken up.
If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21. For a false positive.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
He is still a traitor
Security is safest when there is no solitary critical control point that can fail. Swiss cheese model of layers of defence.
That is possible through NATO. European nations, coalitions of willing nation states, working together cooperative but independently.
That way if one or more European leaders turn out to be unreliable then they can't hold back everyone else.
Redundancy and duplications are a strength not a weakness in Defence.
Interior Minister Gerhard Karner said an Islamic State group flag had been found in his apartment, while state police chief Michaela Kohlweiss said he had sworn allegiance to the group.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4jj0p5jdo
Obviously wrongful convictions happen and people need to be alive to the possibility, but what we've seen so far appears to be mostly media noise. If the legal team think the additional commentary is legally persuasive to either overturn things or get another look then with a high profile case like this the system will probably not let it sit for a long time either.
So rather than leap to assuming there is now reasonable doubt, waiting to see what the legal team actually file (rather than brief at press events) seems wise.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit
Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond
3 October 2011"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-proposes-80mph-motorway-speed-limit
In the long term it makes sense for the EU to embrace Russia - the EU gets access to vast natural resources, a space programme, a nuclear programme, and Russia gets (a bit more) respectability, better governance (I think the EU is appallingly governed but it beats Russia), and healthier business practises. En bloc, the Eurasian Union would be powerful enough to hold its own with the US and China, though never powerful enough to overtake either.
The UK wouldn't need to join, we have all the energy resources we need, we have all the good governance we need (after this lot have been booted out) and with positive relationships with all, particularly the anglosphere and Commonwealth, we could thrive and prosper.
With defence spending presumably a bigger worry is a lot of it would be wasted on white elephants anyway.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease.
You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
Now, who's going to pay for all this?
I could be wrong of course, but I feel like his heart is no longer in the game.
“We are 100% confident that text is AI-generated”
https://originality.ai/ai-checker
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6664615/#:~:text=Positive predictive value is the,result actually has the disease.
Fuck knows who these people are, that still like and admire him, but they definitely exist
What a ####.
The question makes no mention of how common the disease is. The test will always however produce 5% false positives.
So if the disease is very common say 1 in 10 and you tested 100 people you will get 10 accurate positive tests and 5 false tests. So you will be 66.67% sure you have the disease.
If the disease is very rare, say 1 in 1,000,000 then if you test 100 people you will likely get 0 accurate positive tests, but still 5 false tests, so even though you have tested positive you are almost certainly sure you don't have the disease. If you did test 1,000,000 people the ratio would be 1/50,000 or 0.002%
There is a hell of a difference between 66.67% and 0.002% so the frequency of the disease in the population is critical.
Nonetheless it must be said, more in sorrow than anger, that a man who conspires to hand over a chunk of his nation’s sovereign territory, against all advice, and contrives to make his countrymen PAY for this - in the billions - and who does it in a way which will directly benefit his close friends financially…. is a traitor. What other words covers what Sir Sheer Wanker is doing? It is hard to find a clearer example of national betrayal in modern British politics, but maybe the PB historians can find such