If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Fair enough, but the substantive point remains: Mahmood is authoritarian and anti-immigrant, to the point of promoting voluntary repatriation, and has stated publicly that her background as a brown Hindu insulates her from criticism from white liberals. Good or bad, such a stance would be a better fit in the Conservative Party than the Labour Party: so much so in fact I'm wondering why she joined the Labour Party in the first place, especially since the 2026 Conservative Party is remarkably non-racist compared to its 1980s incarnation.
She's not anti-immigrant. She's anti those who break the rules, bend the rules and generally take the piss.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Fair enough, but the substantive point remains: Mahmood is authoritarian and anti-immigrant, to the point of promoting voluntary repatriation, and has stated publicly that her background as a brown Hindu insulates her from criticism from white liberals. Good or bad, such a stance would be a better fit in the Conservative Party than the Labour Party: so much so in fact I'm wondering why she joined the Labour Party in the first place, especially since the 2026 Conservative Party is remarkably non-racist compared to its 1980s incarnation.
Isn't she a Muslim? Her name suggests so, as does her Wikipedia bio
Leclerc has blown it twice for himself this afternoon. If he wanted to stay out, he should have stayed out - entirely his call.
Now binned it.
And blaming the brakes.
"Leclerc has blown it twice for himself this afternoon."
He must have a very flexible spine.
Both he and the team are probably asking themselves if the long term contract they just signed was a good idea..
.."I don't even know why I listen. I know we need to become better. Why are you not letting me out. I don't even understand you're explanation to be honest"..
Have Monaco subcontracted the tarmacking job to a UK outfit?
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
This particular online personality isn't a good source for anything except bullshit.
Ben Judah, not Dixie.
Ben's real, I've met him once or twice.
I'm not saying he's not real, I'm saying he's best known for saying silly things online.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Well, it's certainly the far right thing, but not the correct thing.
God, Monaco is the most boring race of the year. By a distance.
Qualifying yesterday was the most exciting hour of F1 you’ll see all year though.
Today is just the party, in front of the Champagne set.
Yes qualifying is good. But the race is terrible. Even when cars don't have a full set of gears or cannot accelerate properly you cannot get past them at any point on the entire track. You can only listen to how close someone is, who has fresher tyres etc for so long. None of it makes any difference.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It could just be my sick mind, but I don't think that looks like they intended it to look.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It could just be my sick mind, but I don't think that looks like they intended it to look.
Jung might have had something to say about subconscious wish fulfillment.
God, Monaco is the most boring race of the year. By a distance.
Qualifying yesterday was the most exciting hour of F1 you’ll see all year though.
Today is just the party, in front of the Champagne set.
Yes qualifying is good. But the race is terrible. Even when cars don't have a full set of gears or cannot accelerate properly you cannot get past them at any point on the entire track. You can only listen to how close someone is, who has fresher tyres etc for so long. None of it makes any difference.
I remember Murray Walker saying 30 years ago, that if there wasn’t already a Grand Prix at Monaco there’s no way they’d allow one now.
It’s an anachronism, so watch it seriously on Saturday and just enjoy the party on Sunday.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It could just be my sick mind, but I don't think that looks like they intended it to look.
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
The obvious inference is that the expert was good for her on some points but damaging on others and they made a tactical decision not to call him.
This is a case where angels fear to tread, so I shall just make one brief comment on the cited Hammond article. It includes this passage:
LETBY’S barrister, Ben Myers KC, tried to call Hall to the stand at the same time as Evans, to debunk the air embolism and air in the stomach claims which account for all the murders. The prosecution refused.
I have no idea what it means to suggest that an attempt was made to call a witness 'at the same time' as another witness. Courts are not an Any Questions panel. The defence could cross examine any expert witness on the basis of his own expert's evidence, and then in due course call his expert.
Secondly, the remark 'The prosecution refused' is extremely odd. All decisions about procedure within a trial are, as everyone knows, made by the judge. It is quite clear that the decision by the defence not to call expert evidence was made by the defence.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It could just be my sick mind, but I don't think that looks like they intended it to look.
Would have been funny if the rainbow man was facing the other way.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Well, now. I don't want to annoy the blessed @TSE but this comment about the Lucy Letby case on the previous thread begs an obvious question.
"My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit."
What did this research consist of exactly?
Did he read every day's transcript of the evidence and all the reports and written evidence put before the jury in the two trials? And not anything else. Because unless he did that he can't really say that as a juror he would have voted to acquit on all the charges in both trials.
He might think as others have done that there is other evidence which could have been put before a jury. And that if it had been she might have acquitted. He might be right.
But the key question for me is this: Letby had an expert medical witness advising her team who was willing to give evidence undermining the prosecution's evidence about how those babies died and yet the defence did not call him. Why has never been explained? Only Lucy Letby can do so and she has chosen to remain silent.
The answer to that has actually been clear for some time. There was a pre-trial meeting of experts and the defence experts either deferred to or agreed with the prosecution expert, Peter Hindmarsh, about the insulin evidence.
Recent developments regarding that insulin evidence have been quite prominently reported in the press recently.
It's always a mistake to assume that, just because you haven't done any research on a particular subject, no one else has done any either.
Not quite. There has been Private Eye stuff, which for all I know is soundly based, tending to show why evidence was not called, but that does not mean the answer is clear. Private Eye may be being polemical, selective, or acting with limited information. This sometimes happens. Letby and her defence lawyers have not, SFAICS, made public their approach and its reasons. The CCRC will, I think, have access to all of this if privilege has been waived, as has been reported. So it is quite likely more will be revealed.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It could just be my sick mind, but I don't think that looks like they intended it to look.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
There is actually a very raw, warlike version of English identity (and British identity subsequently) that is very plugged in to jingoism and biffing people. Think hanging a monkey for a French man, Wellington's army of 'scum' defeating Napoleon, even the longbowmen of Agincourt and their two-fingered salute. Toward the end of Empire a sort of world-weary, polite, apologetic version of Britishness prevailed, and that has been more or less the fashion ever since. But football hooligans and those like them are not entirely outside the British tradition.
Just completed my civic duty and voted. Used four of my nine votes for Senators and one for a deputy but it was least bad option and my vote for one of two Connétables (nearest equivalent is a Mayor in a French or Swiss commune really but they also have special policing powers, in charge of the honorary police and have sentencing powers for certain offences).
Queued for ten minutes but had hit a sweet spot as one of the officials I spoke to said that people had be queuing for over an hour at points this morning and they have never seen anything like the turnout this time before.
Anyway I feel truly virtuous now and hope get back to my normal self over the course of the day.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
If I'm faced with Starmer v Burnham on the leadership ballot, it will be time to draw a cock and balls.
So who would you want? As I said down thread it is a lot easier to say what you don't like than to find anything you do. Who would you want our next PM to be?
I want rid of Starmer, as I think he is just rubbish at politics.
I don't want Burnham, as I can't stand his sense of entitlement.
My choice would be one of Mahmood or Phillipson. Two capable women, who could do a much better job than Starmer of setting a direction and selling it to the nation.
Thanks. As a disillusioned Tory I have been quite impressed with Mahmood in the last few months.
Reminds me of Rory Stewart running for Tory leader. As a non-Tory, I liked him. Mahmood is implementing policies Priti Patel would have found extreme. She would drive away the left and centre of the Labour vote. Starmer has already found out being Reform-lite doesn't work.
Sometimes a minister has to do the right thing to deal with an issue, and ignore the bleating from the wannabe social workers on the back benches, and the wider membership.
Fair enough, but the substantive point remains: Mahmood is authoritarian and anti-immigrant, to the point of promoting voluntary repatriation, and has stated publicly that her background as a brown Hindu insulates her from criticism from white liberals. Good or bad, such a stance would be a better fit in the Conservative Party than the Labour Party: so much so in fact I'm wondering why she joined the Labour Party in the first place, especially since the 2026 Conservative Party is remarkably non-racist compared to its 1980s incarnation.
Narrator: Mahmood is a Muslim name, not a Hindu one.
Lords has 3 tests this summer, the grounds who missed out and have pitches in decent condition will be annoyed. We also have the Oval which will be a road if the county games are a guide.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
This particular online personality isn't a good source for anything except bullshit.
Ben Judah, not Dixie.
Ben's real, I've met him once or twice.
I'm not saying he's not real, I'm saying he's best known for saying silly things online.
So, Vancouver is similarly warmed type climate to ours, by the time you get to California that is explicitly a Mediterranean type climate.
- Bristol at 51.5 degrees averages 10.9C over the year. - Petropavlovsk on the Russian coast at 53 degrees, slightly more of a continental influence but no warming current averages 3C over the year. - Port Stanley at exact Bristol latitude but cooled by the Antarctic averages 6C. - St. Anthony on the Newfoundland coast, at Bristol latitude averages 0.3C over the year.
AIUI, with Arctic winds, and from the previous time I looked at this, the 15C cooling applies to northern Scotland and the impact gets progressively less the further south you go, so Bristol wouldn't be particularly badly affected.
Isn't she a Muslim? Her name suggests so, as does her Wikipedia bio
Aaaand the prize for "most stupid post in June" goes to viewcode. Thank you folks. Yes you are right, Shabana Mahmood is Muslim not Hindu.
Not be any stretch the stupidest post in June, or probably even today.
In a very odd piece of not really trivia, for some reason I watched a couple of George Galloway videos the other week (I know), and he claims that Shabana wears a wig. Presumably (if true) to remain religiously observant whilst avoiding wearing a hijab. A lot of Jewish women do the same. If true it is extremely realistic.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Yeah, this poster is not just suggesting that they prefer "British pride", but they actively want to harm those who are celebrating pride month. It looks grubby.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Yeah, this poster is not just suggesting that they prefer "British pride", but they actively want to harm those who are celebrating pride month. It looks grubby.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Liberal Democrat’s private polling is also picking up greater resistance to Reform; Farage’s popularity has clearly taken a knock this year, at least among folks who didn’t much like him to begin with. That said, so far at least, the Reform lot on IOW’s council are keeping a relatively low profile; perhaps the gravity of the position they and the council is in has begun to sink home.
Apparently the single demographic that correlates most strongly with propensity to vote Reform is not having a passport.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
I haven't said what position I back - I'm just asking you a fairly simple question about your position. You've stated that you disagree with stopping taxpayer funding of these events, so I'm just wondering why.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Yeah, this poster is not just suggesting that they prefer "British pride", but they actively want to harm those who are celebrating pride month. It looks grubby.
I guess we’ve found the limit for the average voter which is not hostility to pride then. Reform need to taper it back.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Liberal Democrat’s private polling is also picking up greater resistance to Reform; Farage’s popularity has clearly taken a knock this year, at least among folks who didn’t much like him to begin with. That said, so far at least, the Reform lot on IOW’s council are keeping a relatively low profile; perhaps the gravity of the position they and the council is in has begun to sink home.
Apparently the single demographic that correlates most strongly with propensity to vote Reform is not having a passport.
Dan Hodges who is not reliable said the shine had come off Farage about six months back.
I’m still unconvinced Reform is actually very popular. I remain of the view that a lot of the vote is that Labour has not delivered enough change. If Labour delivered more change I don’t see that the next election is winnable for Reform: too divisive.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
This particular online personality isn't a good source for anything except bullshit.
Ben Judah, not Dixie.
Ben's real, I've met him once or twice.
I'm not saying he's not real, I'm saying he's best known for saying silly things online.
So, Vancouver is similarly warmed type climate to ours, by the time you get to California that is explicitly a Mediterranean type climate.
- Bristol at 51.5 degrees averages 10.9C over the year. - Petropavlovsk on the Russian coast at 53 degrees, slightly more of a continental influence but no warming current averages 3C over the year. - Port Stanley at exact Bristol latitude but cooled by the Antarctic averages 6C. - St. Anthony on the Newfoundland coast, at Bristol latitude averages 0.3C over the year.
AIUI, with Arctic winds, and from the previous time I looked at this, the 15C cooling applies to northern Scotland and the impact gets progressively less the further south you go, so Bristol wouldn't be particularly badly affected.
Vancouver has nothing akin to the AMOC.
Petropavlovsk and St Anthony are both on the east side of huge continents. As is Port Stanley to a lesser degree. Now, if the earth started spinning the other way we might have a problem but I suspect the jolt would wipe us all out anyway.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Liberal Democrat’s private polling is also picking up greater resistance to Reform; Farage’s popularity has clearly taken a knock this year, at least among folks who didn’t much like him to begin with. That said, so far at least, the Reform lot on IOW’s council are keeping a relatively low profile; perhaps the gravity of the position they and the council is in has begun to sink home.
Apparently the single demographic that correlates most strongly with propensity to vote Reform is not having a passport.
Dan Hodges who is not reliable said the shine had come off Farage about six months back.
I’m still unconvinced Reform is actually very popular. I remain of the view that a lot of the vote is that Labour has not delivered enough change. If Labour delivered more change I don’t see that the next election is winnable for Reform: too divisive.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Who are these "British Unity" people? And I can't find anything political concerning "Ross Hinchliffe".
As I see it, they could be anyone ... and the only thing I can see clearly is a hostility to 'pride' .
The last time I know about that slogan is from ages ago (based on searches) - and it was Nick Griffin fishing around with something post-BNP but not an organised party, in the mid 2010s.
Plus there is a twitter account from 2014:
"British Unity @Unitypartygb Political party based on the principles of one people, one state regardless of race or creed."
Based on the graphic, it would be that way inclined. But I would not expect it to be Griffin-attached in 2027.
Equally the slogan could be someone asserting that "British" and "Unity" would actually mean a multicultural society (clearly not here). I'm expecting the mainstream left to reappropriate "patriotic" as meaning them before long, and reclaim the Union Flag for similar reasons. It's a language I am already sometimes using in debate in some places to reject the assertion that blood and soil nationalism is patriotic.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Who are these "British Unity" people? And I can't find anything political concerning "Ross Hinchliffe".
As I see it, they could be anyone ... and the only thing I can see clearly is a hostility to 'pride' .
The last time I know about that slogan is from ages ago (based on searches) - and it was Nick Griffin fishing around with something post-BNP but not an organised party, in the mid 2010s.
Plus there is a twitter account from 2014:
"British Unity @Unitypartygb Political party based on the principles of one people, one state regardless of race or creed."
Based on the graphic, it would be that way inclined. But I would not expect it to be Griffin-attached in 2027.
Equally the slogan could be someone asserting that "British" and "Unity" would actually mean a multicultural society (clearly not here). I'm expecting the mainstream left to reappropriate "patriotic" as meaning them before long, and reclaim the Union Flag for similar reasons. It's a language I am already sometimes using in debate in some places to reject the assertion that blood and soil nationalism is patriotic.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
Personally I don't think taxpayers should fund pride events.
"The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur."
The date when the unit was downgraded was not the same date when Letby was asked to stop working on it. And yet the deaths stopped in that interim period before the unit was downgraded. There might be other explanations for that but the fact that the unit was downgraded is not an answer to the fact that a soon as she was no longer there, the deaths stopped. It is circumstantial evidence.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
Personally I don't think taxpayers should fund pride events.
Both are valid positions, but I would like to know why HYUFD thinks that pride events are a good use of public funds.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Liberal Democrat’s private polling is also picking up greater resistance to Reform; Farage’s popularity has clearly taken a knock this year, at least among folks who didn’t much like him to begin with. That said, so far at least, the Reform lot on IOW’s council are keeping a relatively low profile; perhaps the gravity of the position they and the council is in has begun to sink home.
Apparently the single demographic that correlates most strongly with propensity to vote Reform is not having a passport.
Dan Hodges who is not reliable said the shine had come off Farage about six months back.
I’m still unconvinced Reform is actually very popular. I remain of the view that a lot of the vote is that Labour has not delivered enough change. If Labour delivered more change I don’t see that the next election is winnable for Reform: too divisive.
It’s like calling the stock market crash, these people calling peak Reform, they’ll eventually be right. They’ll just forget the multiple times they were wrong and try to dine out on being correct.
Reform councils cut funding for pride events.
Council budgets are under severe stress.
It’s not only Reform councils but many businesses and other organisations have cut funding for pride events too leading to quite a few cancellations.
I’m pleased Durham Pride went ahead, mainly for the businesses who would benefit from an influx of people into the place. But the overtly political crap about it on my Facebook feed has seen the mute button very active.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
This particular online personality isn't a good source for anything except bullshit.
Ben Judah, not Dixie.
Ben's real, I've met him once or twice.
I'm not saying he's not real, I'm saying he's best known for saying silly things online.
So, Vancouver is similarly warmed type climate to ours, by the time you get to California that is explicitly a Mediterranean type climate.
- Bristol at 51.5 degrees averages 10.9C over the year. - Petropavlovsk on the Russian coast at 53 degrees, slightly more of a continental influence but no warming current averages 3C over the year. - Port Stanley at exact Bristol latitude but cooled by the Antarctic averages 6C. - St. Anthony on the Newfoundland coast, at Bristol latitude averages 0.3C over the year.
AIUI, with Arctic winds, and from the previous time I looked at this, the 15C cooling applies to northern Scotland and the impact gets progressively less the further south you go, so Bristol wouldn't be particularly badly affected.
Vancouver has nothing akin to the AMOC.
Petropavlovsk and St Anthony are both on the east side of huge continents. As is Port Stanley to a lesser degree. Now, if the earth started spinning the other way we might have a problem but I suspect the jolt would wipe us all out anyway.
I do not think we will be as cold as Newfoundland is now (not least because the whole world will be warmer) but I do not think Port Stanley a good example. Ocean currents in the Southern hemisphere go counter clockwise rather than clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. In the Falklands there is also the Antarctic circumpolar current, so has influences from both north and south.
I think the AMOC is unlikely to completely stop in our lifetimes, but the fact that the North Atlantic is the only part of the worlds surface is cooling does have implications for our climate future. We may well not be as toasty hot as the Sahel, India or Mediteranean, but climate instability with colder winters and changes in rainfall patterns may well mean major changes needed to our built infrastructure and agriculture.
Sure, there are costs to Net Zero, as well as many new industries and jobs, but the costs of not doing anything to reduce or mitigate it are massive. The story of the boiling frog is very pertinent. At present the frog is finding it pleasantly warm...
Off topic, but possibly of historical interest: In the US, "carpetbagger" was often combined with "scalawag". Northeners who came to the South to rebuild a society without slavery were "carpetbaggers". (Incidentally, many were middle class, by the standards of those times.)
"Scalawags" were southerners who joined them in that effort, often because they wanted to keep the great slave owners from ever regaining power.
No doubt, humans being imperfect, some in each group hoped to do well, while doing good -- and some just wanted to do well. But, in my opinion, their net effect was positive.
(Fun fact: By those old definitions, George H. W. Bush was a "carpetbagger", since he moved to Texas to make money in the oil business and, after he had provided for his family, went into politics.)
Thanks for the explanations re the Letby pre trial hearings. I have just read a long detailed book about the case - not just the trial but the subsequent concerns about the evidence. Letby's defence expert was interviewed for the book and explains his concerns about the prosecution's medical evidence. He comes across as thoughtful though I cannot assess the medical aspects. If he had those concerns I am surprised that the defence agreed the medical evidence before the trial
"The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur."
The date when the unit was downgraded was not the same date when Letby was asked to stop working on it. And yet the deaths stopped in that interim period before the unit was downgraded. There might be other explanations for that but the fact that the unit was downgraded is not an answer to the fact that a soon as she was no longer there, the deaths stopped. It is circumstantial evidence.
Playing devil's advocate.
If I was a senior doctor with a serious mental illness that got a kick out of murdering babies, and someone else took the wrap for it.
I think I'd try to find the self control to stop, at least for a while. It stopped because Letby took the rap, the real perp stopped and soon after the opportunity was taken away any way.
It there was no perp at all but a complex explanation
"The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur."
The date when the unit was downgraded was not the same date when Letby was asked to stop working on it. And yet the deaths stopped in that interim period before the unit was downgraded. There might be other explanations for that but the fact that the unit was downgraded is not an answer to the fact that a soon as she was no longer there, the deaths stopped. It is circumstantial evidence.
Playing devil's advocate.
If I was a senior doctor with a serious mental illness that got a kick out of murdering babies, and someone else took the wrap for it.
I think I'd try to find the self control to stop, at least for a while. It stopped because Letby took the rap, the real perp stopped and soon after the opportunity was taken away any way.
It there was no perp at all but a complex explanation
Or - playing even more devil's advocate - she had an accomplice.
The real issue with this case is that all the evidence is circumstantial and the evidence that the deaths were unnatural is complex. If those babies were not murdered, why and how did they die?
I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.
As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".
"The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur."
The date when the unit was downgraded was not the same date when Letby was asked to stop working on it. And yet the deaths stopped in that interim period before the unit was downgraded. There might be other explanations for that but the fact that the unit was downgraded is not an answer to the fact that a soon as she was no longer there, the deaths stopped. It is circumstantial evidence.
Playing devil's advocate.
If I was a senior doctor with a serious mental illness that got a kick out of murdering babies, and someone else took the wrap for it.
I think I'd try to find the self control to stop, at least for a while. It stopped because Letby took the rap, the real perp stopped and soon after the opportunity was taken away any way.
It there was no perp at all but a complex explanation
I do not think that plausible because of the numbers of staff involved. A senior neo-natologist would rarely be alone with a neonate. They would almost always be accompanying staff on the ward round or if doing a technical procedure.
viewcode's recent apology got me thinking about politicians who are devout, regardless of the political consequences -- versus politicians who act devout because it helps them politically.
So I looked at Shabana Mahmood's Wikipedia biography to see whether she fit either of those categories, and came to the tentative conclusion that she fit the first better than the second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood
The growing risk of a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system, of which the Gulf Stream is part, is nothing less than the number one long-term security threat to our way of life in Britain, Europe and the Western world in the era in which we live.
The consequences on our societies of an AMOC collapse would be simply devastating for Britain especially, beyond anything imaginable but a full blown super pandemic or nuclear war — with scientists modelling temperatures dropping around 15.c and half of our arable land being lost.
This is just one of many climate catastrophes starring at us of the modelling and the observed data and is why it is why Labour has continued to place such importance on Net Zero and international climate talks despite the Greens and progressive activists now looking elsewhere post-October 7th and the Conservatives joining Reform in now campaigning against them.
If the AMOC collapses no. 15°C. Look at the latitude we are on.
No sorry that's not it. Take for example Bristol latitude 51.5N, mean annual temperature = 11.4°C. Compare with Vancouver BC: latitude 49.2, mean annual temperature 11.0°C.
Ok, Vancouver is 80 miles further south, and a it is a bit cooler, but nothing like 15°C cooler.
A 15°C drop implies the mean annual temperature of Britain would be -4°C. Which is what you get in Yellowknife NT, or Fairbanks Alaska
This particular online personality isn't a good source for anything except bullshit.
Ben Judah, not Dixie.
Ben's real, I've met him once or twice.
I'm not saying he's not real, I'm saying he's best known for saying silly things online.
So, Vancouver is similarly warmed type climate to ours, by the time you get to California that is explicitly a Mediterranean type climate.
- Bristol at 51.5 degrees averages 10.9C over the year. - Petropavlovsk on the Russian coast at 53 degrees, slightly more of a continental influence but no warming current averages 3C over the year. - Port Stanley at exact Bristol latitude but cooled by the Antarctic averages 6C. - St. Anthony on the Newfoundland coast, at Bristol latitude averages 0.3C over the year.
AIUI, with Arctic winds, and from the previous time I looked at this, the 15C cooling applies to northern Scotland and the impact gets progressively less the further south you go, so Bristol wouldn't be particularly badly affected.
Vancouver has nothing akin to the AMOC.
Petropavlovsk and St Anthony are both on the east side of huge continents. As is Port Stanley to a lesser degree. Now, if the earth started spinning the other way we might have a problem but I suspect the jolt would wipe us all out anyway.
OK, I'm testing my understanding of what an AMOC collapse is said to look like from a climate perspective, having looked at what the prediction said a while back and not necessarily arguing that that prediction is right. At the risk of some 'Grandma sucking eggs' explanation, I'll try and continue in the same vane.
My main understanding of the prediction was that the prevailing wind of the UK would increasingly come from the north and north east, rather than the south west, originating in the Arctic Ocean a lot of the time. This would bring quite dry, overcast (oceanic still, but not much evaporation) and much cooler air to the UK, with that signal being stronger the further north you went, so already cold northern areas like Scotland would get much colder, whilst Southern areas would get a bit colder.
Winds travelling west to east are a local mid latitude phenomenon. They start as the trade winds going east to west at the equator, then any low pressure weather systems that choose north spin clockwise they also arc clockwise and travel north so that they are reversed by mid latitudes. I accept my comparators are imperfect and that West to East is a rule at mid latitudes. That broad direction of spinning out won't change.
But, here's the thing. Where does mid latitude end and the polar region begin? Polar winds go out from high pressure in the north, heading downwards and weakly east to west. My understanding is the AMOC collapse is not just a lessening of the warmth of the water our weather is passing over from the south west, but a transition from mid latitude to polar prevailing wind directions. At our northernmost we are at 60 degrees so I guess we are susceptible to such a change, Again, there are few comparators here, the Arctic Ocean winds hit land quickly around pretty much their entire circumference, and we are the only place so far south on a direct oceanic line from the Arctic. And the Antarctic has land based east to west winds, that I guess interact fairly weakly with the west to east domination in the roaring forties.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Yes, I note that both Caerphilly and Gorton and Denton had unusually high turnouts for by elections. I think this was the "Stop Reform" vote in action.
Will this be as active in Makersfield? I suppose we will see in 2 weeks time.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
Personally I don't think taxpayers should fund pride events.
Both are valid positions, but I would like to know why HYUFD thinks that pride events are a good use of public funds.
I don't especially unless councils and government have a clear surplus to fund them. The point was more that Reform's main position is opposition to public funds supporting Pride events and publications and opposition to flying the Pride flag on public buildings, rather than banning Pride completely
"The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur."
The date when the unit was downgraded was not the same date when Letby was asked to stop working on it. And yet the deaths stopped in that interim period before the unit was downgraded. There might be other explanations for that but the fact that the unit was downgraded is not an answer to the fact that a soon as she was no longer there, the deaths stopped. It is circumstantial evidence.
This appears to be completely untrue.
According to this submission to the Thirlwell inquiry, the Countess of Chester Neonatal unit was downgraded to only take the lowest grade of premature babies on the 30th June 2016. (Para. 8 on page 3.)
"The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur."
The date when the unit was downgraded was not the same date when Letby was asked to stop working on it. And yet the deaths stopped in that interim period before the unit was downgraded. There might be other explanations for that but the fact that the unit was downgraded is not an answer to the fact that a soon as she was no longer there, the deaths stopped. It is circumstantial evidence.
Playing devil's advocate.
If I was a senior doctor with a serious mental illness that got a kick out of murdering babies, and someone else took the wrap for it.
I think I'd try to find the self control to stop, at least for a while. It stopped because Letby took the rap, the real perp stopped and soon after the opportunity was taken away any way.
It there was no perp at all but a complex explanation
I do not think that plausible because of the numbers of staff involved. A senior neo-natologist would rarely be alone with a neonate. They would almost always be accompanying staff on the ward round or if doing a technical procedure.
Letby was convicted of having killed some of the babies by hurting them whilst other people were in the same room.
If it’s possible for her to do this, then it’s clearly also possible for one of the Doctors to do the same.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t believe that any of the Doctors involved deliberately hurt the babies in their care.)
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
Interesting. People clearly don’t like having pride pushed in their faces too much but equally seem to not want to turn the clocks back. It would seem Reform have started to step into the latter.
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
I wonder what's different for the new Reform councils this year compared with last... there does feel like a bit more "that's not nice" normie pushback. Is it where the councils are? What they're trying to do? Or the unsavoury bits of the Reform coalition are more vocal and off-putting?
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
Liberal Democrat’s private polling is also picking up greater resistance to Reform; Farage’s popularity has clearly taken a knock this year, at least among folks who didn’t much like him to begin with. That said, so far at least, the Reform lot on IOW’s council are keeping a relatively low profile; perhaps the gravity of the position they and the council is in has begun to sink home.
Apparently the single demographic that correlates most strongly with propensity to vote Reform is not having a passport.
As Mel Brooks may have it: "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land—the common clay of the new West.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
Personally I don't think taxpayers should fund pride events.
Both are valid positions, but I would like to know why HYUFD thinks that pride events are a good use of public funds.
I don't especially unless councils and government have a clear surplus to fund them. The point was more that Reform's main position is opposition to public funds supporting Pride events and publications and opposition to flying the Pride flag on public buildings, rather than banning Pride completely
Any legal non extremist event that brings footfall in to a town or City increases footfall and income and growth.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
Personally I don't think taxpayers should fund pride events.
Both are valid positions, but I would like to know why HYUFD thinks that pride events are a good use of public funds.
I don't especially unless councils and government have a clear surplus to fund them. The point was more that Reform's main position is opposition to public funds supporting Pride events and publications and opposition to flying the Pride flag on public buildings, rather than banning Pride completely
There are various ways of looking at this.
One is that Pride is a positive experience for enough people that councils should be willing to chip in with some cash or officer time to help it to happen. A social investment, so to speak. Given where council finances are everywhere, I doubt that argument holds, even if it should- and maybe it shouldn't.
The next step back is that, whatever its intrinsic benefits, it's a good extrinsic thing to do, because events and culture and whatnot bring trade into a town. That, at some level, it's a sensible practical thing for a council to invest in, alongside a Chinese dragon in late January/early February, a dead dragon for St George's Day, pretty lights for December and so on. The lack of council cash is still an issue there, but it leaves us with the "our town is dull, so let's not spend money making it less dull" loop. That might be where we are, but let's not kid ourselves that it's good for the future.
But... I don't get the impression that that's where some of these newly-elected councils are. It doesn't cost much to put a flag up on a spare flagpole for a few weeks. Or to have a display of LGBT authors in a library. Or a poster on a noticeboard. So what is it about?
Reading this report on what's been announced in Essex... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8pl532d7lo ... it feels like a question of what do we mean by "us"? If a space is for everyone, can it only contain things that nobody (or hardly anybody) finds disagreeable? Where is the line between accepting differences that don't divide us, and needing unanimity to be united? I'm not sure I like Reform's answer to that question, but I'm also not sure I can express a better answer.
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
Personally I don't think taxpayers should fund pride events.
Both are valid positions, but I would like to know why HYUFD thinks that pride events are a good use of public funds.
I know that you didn't ask me but if it's council policy to fund or subsidise community events then there shouldn't be any reason not to do so for a pride event. They're as good a use of money as a beer festival or a regatta.
For what it's worth from a (personal) gay perspective, I don't particularly enjoy Pride parades. They've long ago ceased to have any campaigning or activist meaning and are just loud parties which doesn't appeal to me personally. There are also elements who think it Pride events give them a licence to behave lewdly in public which I find counterproductive as a boring normal gay.
I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.
As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".
Thanks for this report Nick.
I think Burnham is in trouble if Reform have the mantle of "time for a change." Burnham's best hope is to be the vehicle for change - a change of PM to change the direction of the Labour government.
I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.
As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".
Thanks for this report Nick.
I think Burnham is in trouble if Reform have the mantle of "time for a change." Burnham's best hope is to be the vehicle for change - a change of PM to change the direction of the Labour government.
Indeed. Burnham’s most persuasive pitch is that he’s campaigning for a different governmental approach and - as everyone knows - a different PM, yet he’s relying on secondary media sources to get this message across since the Labour Party machine can hardly campaign for it, itself.
I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.
As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".
I suspect it will be close, too close to risk a bet. Do you have any evidence of differential turnout?
So speaking to a pollster one thing they are picking up in the past few weeks is people who previously not voting planning to vote (and will vote for the party best placed to stop Reform.)
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
It’s weird because it’s not actually a very British position to take. We like to think of ourselves (rightly or wrongly) as a tolerant nation who are quiet unless a tyrant overseas starts behaving badly. We have a strong national identity based on our resistance to the Nazis and their despicable acts and views.
Reform aren't proposing to ban Pride or even scrap gay marriage (though Farage has said he would have preferred just to keep civil unions).
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
Why do you think the taxpayers should be funding pride events?
So clearly you back the Reform position and think taxpayers should not fund Pride events, which is fair enough
Personally I don't think taxpayers should fund pride events.
Both are valid positions, but I would like to know why HYUFD thinks that pride events are a good use of public funds.
I don't especially unless councils and government have a clear surplus to fund them. The point was more that Reform's main position is opposition to public funds supporting Pride events and publications and opposition to flying the Pride flag on public buildings, rather than banning Pride completely
There are various ways of looking at this.
One is that Pride is a positive experience for enough people that councils should be willing to chip in with some cash or officer time to help it to happen. A social investment, so to speak. Given where council finances are everywhere, I doubt that argument holds, even if it should- and maybe it shouldn't.
The next step back is that, whatever its intrinsic benefits, it's a good extrinsic thing to do, because events and culture and whatnot bring trade into a town. That, at some level, it's a sensible practical thing for a council to invest in, alongside a Chinese dragon in late January/early February, a dead dragon for St George's Day, pretty lights for December and so on. The lack of council cash is still an issue there, but it leaves us with the "our town is dull, so let's not spend money making it less dull" loop. That might be where we are, but let's not kid ourselves that it's good for the future.
But... I don't get the impression that that's where some of these newly-elected councils are. It doesn't cost much to put a flag up on a spare flagpole for a few weeks. Or to have a display of LGBT authors in a library. Or a poster on a noticeboard. So what is it about?
Reading this report on what's been announced in Essex... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8pl532d7lo ... it feels like a question of what do we mean by "us"? If a space is for everyone, can it only contain things that nobody (or hardly anybody) finds disagreeable? Where is the line between accepting differences that don't divide us, and needing unanimity to be united? I'm not sure I like Reform's answer to that question, but I'm also not sure I can express a better answer.
I don’t have a problem with councils funding Pride, as long as it’s not at the expense of other commitments such as social care and road maintenance. I suspect most people will have more pride in their community if it was tidied up and brightened up.
I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.
As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".
I suspect it will be close, too close to risk a bet. Do you have any evidence of differential turnout?
I'm tempted to bet on Reform so that I have some kind of consolation prize if they win but be basically hoping I lose my fiver.
I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.
As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".
Thanks for this report Nick.
I think Burnham is in trouble if Reform have the mantle of "time for a change." Burnham's best hope is to be the vehicle for change - a change of PM to change the direction of the Labour government.
Indeed. Burnham’s most persuasive pitch is that he’s campaigning for a different governmental approach and - as everyone knows - a different PM, yet he’s relying on secondary media sources to get this message across since the Labour Party machine can hardly campaign for it, itself.
Local change vs National change. I wonder if turnout tips that balance one way or the other.
Anybody (if they're a punter as well as a pundit) who reckons Makerfield will be close should consider lumping on REF. You can get better than 7 on Betfair.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_in_Canada
Today is just the party, in front of the Champagne set.
The trigger is Reform criticising pride marches/stopping funding/some helmet saying stuff that's out of the 1980s about the gays.
The more and more content like this appears it is sub-optimal for Reform and this is not just the LGBTQ community planning on voting.
https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12173/13551655/england-vs-new-zealand-mcc-apologises-for-condition-of-lords-pitch-following-second-shortest-test-match-in-grounds-history
It’s an anachronism, so watch it seriously on Saturday and just enjoy the party on Sunday.
Restart in 3m.
26 wickets at 9.5!
LETBY’S barrister, Ben Myers KC, tried
to call Hall to the stand at the same time
as Evans, to debunk the air embolism and
air in the stomach claims which account
for all the murders. The prosecution
refused.
I have no idea what it means to suggest that an attempt was made to call a witness 'at the same time' as another witness. Courts are not an Any Questions panel. The defence could cross examine any expert witness on the basis of his own expert's evidence, and then in due course call his expert.
Secondly, the remark 'The prosecution refused' is extremely odd. All decisions about procedure within a trial are, as everyone knows, made by the judge. It is quite clear that the decision by the defence not to call expert evidence was made by the defence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Jersey_general_election
For me it was their death penalty idea that put me off the idea of ever voting for them.
We also have the Oval which will be a road if the county games are a guide.
Their position is to stop flying Pride flags on government and council buildings and funding Pride events with taxpayer funds, it is not a position I agree with but it is a position many of their voters back
- Bristol at 51.5 degrees averages 10.9C over the year.
- Petropavlovsk on the Russian coast at 53 degrees, slightly more of a continental influence but no warming current averages 3C over the year.
- Port Stanley at exact Bristol latitude but cooled by the Antarctic averages 6C.
- St. Anthony on the Newfoundland coast, at Bristol latitude averages 0.3C over the year.
AIUI, with Arctic winds, and from the previous time I looked at this, the 15C cooling applies to northern Scotland and the impact gets progressively less the further south you go, so Bristol wouldn't be particularly badly affected.
🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐🐐
In a very odd piece of not really trivia, for some reason I watched a couple of George Galloway videos the other week (I know), and he claims that Shabana wears a wig. Presumably (if true) to remain religiously observant whilst avoiding wearing a hijab. A lot of Jewish women do the same. If true it is extremely realistic.
But the "we just don't want it rammed down our throats" line is not holding as well.
https://x.com/leeharris/status/2063576210983018969?s=46
Apparently the single demographic that correlates most strongly with propensity to vote Reform is not having a passport.
Neither seem to be any good at the current job.
(Eric Batman, something to do with Pride Month.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXnS-2jRqr4
I’m still unconvinced Reform is actually very popular. I remain of the view that a lot of the vote is that Labour has not delivered enough change. If Labour delivered more change I don’t see that the next election is winnable for Reform: too divisive.
As I’ve said before, the majority of that support will return to Labour.
@rcs1000 still experiencing frequent errors and site downtime. I’m on Hyperoptic so perhaps routing based
Petropavlovsk and St Anthony are both on the east side of huge continents. As is Port Stanley to a lesser degree. Now, if the earth started spinning the other way we might have a problem but I suspect the jolt would wipe us all out anyway.
https://electiondatavault.co.uk/charts/polling-average/
As I see it, they could be anyone ... and the only thing I can see clearly is a hostility to 'pride' .
The last time I know about that slogan is from ages ago (based on searches) - and it was Nick Griffin fishing around with something post-BNP but not an organised party, in the mid 2010s.
Plus there is a twitter account from 2014:
"British Unity
@Unitypartygb
Political party based on the principles of one people, one state regardless of race or creed."
Based on the graphic, it would be that way inclined. But I would not expect it to be Griffin-attached in 2027.
Equally the slogan could be someone asserting that "British" and "Unity" would actually mean a multicultural society (clearly not here). I'm expecting the mainstream left to reappropriate "patriotic" as meaning them before long, and reclaim the Union Flag for similar reasons. It's a language I am already sometimes using in debate in some places to reject the assertion that blood and soil nationalism is patriotic.
"The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur."
The date when the unit was downgraded was not the same date when Letby was asked to stop working on it. And yet the deaths stopped in that interim period before the unit was downgraded. There might be other explanations for that but the fact that the unit was downgraded is not an answer to the fact that a soon as she was no longer there, the deaths stopped. It is circumstantial evidence.
Journeyman driver
Reform councils cut funding for pride events.
Council budgets are under severe stress.
It’s not only Reform councils but many businesses and other organisations have cut funding for pride events too leading to quite a few cancellations.
I’m pleased Durham Pride went ahead, mainly for the businesses who would benefit from an influx of people into the place. But the overtly political crap about it on my Facebook feed has seen the mute button very active.
I think the AMOC is unlikely to completely stop in our lifetimes, but the fact that the North Atlantic is the only part of the worlds surface is cooling does have implications for our climate future. We may well not be as toasty hot as the Sahel, India or Mediteranean, but climate instability with colder winters and changes in rainfall patterns may well mean major changes needed to our built infrastructure and agriculture.
Sure, there are costs to Net Zero, as well as many new industries and jobs, but the costs of not doing anything to reduce or mitigate it are massive. The story of the boiling frog is very pertinent. At present the frog is finding it pleasantly warm...
"Scalawags" were southerners who joined them in that effort, often because they wanted to keep the great slave owners from ever regaining power.
No doubt, humans being imperfect, some in each group hoped to do well, while doing good -- and some just wanted to do well. But, in my opinion, their net effect was positive.
(Fun fact: By those old definitions, George H. W. Bush was a "carpetbagger", since he moved to Texas to make money in the oil business and, after he had provided for his family, went into politics.)
If I was a senior doctor with a serious mental illness that got a kick out of murdering babies, and someone else took the wrap for it.
I think I'd try to find the self control to stop, at least for a while. It stopped because Letby took the rap, the real perp stopped and soon after the opportunity was taken away any way.
It there was no perp at all but a complex explanation
Needs a scalextric track to hide his lack of sustained speed these days.
The real issue with this case is that all the evidence is circumstantial and the evidence that the deaths were unnatural is complex. If those babies were not murdered, why and how did they die?
As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".
So I looked at Shabana Mahmood's Wikipedia biography to see whether she fit either of those categories, and came to the tentative conclusion that she fit the first better than the second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood
(Your mileage may vary.)
My main understanding of the prediction was that the prevailing wind of the UK would increasingly come from the north and north east, rather than the south west, originating in the Arctic Ocean a lot of the time. This would bring quite dry, overcast (oceanic still, but not much evaporation) and much cooler air to the UK, with that signal being stronger the further north you went, so already cold northern areas like Scotland would get much colder, whilst Southern areas would get a bit colder.
Winds travelling west to east are a local mid latitude phenomenon. They start as the trade winds going east to west at the equator, then any low pressure weather systems that choose north spin clockwise they also arc clockwise and travel north so that they are reversed by mid latitudes. I accept my comparators are imperfect and that West to East is a rule at mid latitudes. That broad direction of spinning out won't change.
But, here's the thing. Where does mid latitude end and the polar region begin? Polar winds go out from high pressure in the north, heading downwards and weakly east to west. My understanding is the AMOC collapse is not just a lessening of the warmth of the water our weather is passing over from the south west, but a transition from mid latitude to polar prevailing wind directions. At our northernmost we are at 60 degrees so I guess we are susceptible to such a change, Again, there are few comparators here, the Arctic Ocean winds hit land quickly around pretty much their entire circumference, and we are the only place so far south on a direct oceanic line from the Arctic. And the Antarctic has land based east to west winds, that I guess interact fairly weakly with the west to east domination in the roaring forties.
New York Knicks reach their first Grand Final in 27 years, the City is buzzing, Nadison Square Garden will be a cauldron.
Millions with have Street Parties with the Knicks on a 13 game unbeaten run, coming home 2 - 0 up in best of 7.
Trump decides to turn up Monday night
Massive security, no street parties, fans have to turn up 2 hours early full ID checks
What should be a joyous night wrecked. Could have a massive negative impact on the Knicks.
Good luck getting out of Dodge Donald if it does.
PS the Mayor sits in the 5th Tier and has done for years.
Will this be as active in Makersfield? I suppose we will see in 2 weeks time.
According to this submission to the Thirlwell inquiry, the Countess of Chester Neonatal unit was downgraded to only take the lowest grade of premature babies on the 30th June 2016. (Para. 8 on page 3.)
https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/The-Royal-College-of-Paediatrics-and-Child-Health-RCPCH-Opening-Statement.pdf
The timeline here: https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/timeline-of-events-in-the-conviction-of-killer-nurse-lucy-letby
states that Letby was prevented from working on the ward in July 2016, which is after the ward was downgraded.
There is no interim period whilst Letby was working on the ward but the ward was yet to be downgraded.
If it’s possible for her to do this, then it’s clearly also possible for one of the Doctors to do the same.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t believe that any of the Doctors involved deliberately hurt the babies in their care.)
You know... morons."
One is that Pride is a positive experience for enough people that councils should be willing to chip in with some cash or officer time to help it to happen. A social investment, so to speak. Given where council finances are everywhere, I doubt that argument holds, even if it should- and maybe it shouldn't.
The next step back is that, whatever its intrinsic benefits, it's a good extrinsic thing to do, because events and culture and whatnot bring trade into a town. That, at some level, it's a sensible practical thing for a council to invest in, alongside a Chinese dragon in late January/early February, a dead dragon for St George's Day, pretty lights for December and so on. The lack of council cash is still an issue there, but it leaves us with the "our town is dull, so let's not spend money making it less dull" loop. That might be where we are, but let's not kid ourselves that it's good for the future.
But... I don't get the impression that that's where some of these newly-elected councils are. It doesn't cost much to put a flag up on a spare flagpole for a few weeks. Or to have a display of LGBT authors in a library. Or a poster on a noticeboard. So what is it about?
Reading this report on what's been announced in Essex...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8pl532d7lo
... it feels like a question of what do we mean by "us"? If a space is for everyone, can it only contain things that nobody (or hardly anybody) finds disagreeable? Where is the line between accepting differences that don't divide us, and needing unanimity to be united? I'm not sure I like Reform's answer to that question, but I'm also not sure I can express a better answer.
Fair play to Welker - top fine job. Why can't more of them push him into the corner where he implodes because reality isn't how he imagines it is.
Acyn
@Acyn
Trump has a meltdown and ends the interview
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2063635651082478066
For what it's worth from a (personal) gay perspective, I don't particularly enjoy Pride parades. They've long ago ceased to have any campaigning or activist meaning and are just loud parties which doesn't appeal to me personally. There are also elements who think it Pride events give them a licence to behave lewdly in public which I find counterproductive as a boring normal gay.
I think Burnham is in trouble if Reform have the mantle of "time for a change." Burnham's best hope is to be the vehicle for change - a change of PM to change the direction of the Labour government.
WELKER: There's no evidence of that