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.
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".
In Makerfield there is a sense of voters having made their minds up at the start of the campaign, a Labour source said, with Reform candidate Rob Kenyon’s unearthed social media remarks not moving the dial:
“I don’t know that it matters that much to the people voting Reform”
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.
Trouble with that is £30 is meagre compensation for the country falling off a cliff.
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".
In Makerfield there is a sense of voters having made their minds up at the start of the campaign, a Labour source said, with Reform candidate Rob Kenyon’s unearthed social media remarks not moving the dial:
“I don’t know that it matters that much to the people voting Reform”
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".
In Makerfield there is a sense of voters having made their minds up at the start of the campaign, a Labour source said, with Reform candidate Rob Kenyon’s unearthed social media remarks not moving the dial:
“I don’t know that it matters that much to the people voting Reform”
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.
That’s the bit Casino always misses when optimising his otherwise wisely pitched betting strategy here.
You need to put a cash value on the happiness you will get from certain outcomes, or the opposite, and then factor that into your NEV. Hence I tend to bet against the LibDems because if they do badly my bet comes off and I have money to spend, and if they do well then the value to me of the resulting happiness cancels out the adverse financial consequences.
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.
I hadn’t realised Reform were at such long odds.
Yep. They opened at 2.8 and have drifted to 7.2. That's huge if it's close.
He's ludicrous. I am bewildered that the US takes him even vaguely seriously.
That they’ve elected him twice having seen what happened the first time really beggars belief. It would be like Brits voting for Brexit and then later voting into office the same guy who missold it to us.
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.
I hadn’t realised Reform were at such long odds.
Yep. They opened at 2.8 and have drifted to 7.2. That's huge if it's close.
But it’s not. On PB those who understand politics have backed Burnham from the start, whereas our now banned colleague is really the only one who thinks Reform might still win.
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.
Trouble with that is £30 is meagre compensation for the country falling off a cliff.
That just tells us you’ve missized your bet by failing to assess the actual NEV to you of those adverse political outcomes.
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".
In Makerfield there is a sense of voters having made their minds up at the start of the campaign, a Labour source said, with Reform candidate Rob Kenyon’s unearthed social media remarks not moving the dial:
“I don’t know that it matters that much to the people voting Reform”
The question with Reform voters is not who they will vote for, it's will they turn out and vote..
The lesson of the locals is the opposite - propensity to vote among current Reform voters is actually high, and the question is whether Labour leaning supporters will turn out and vote.
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.
I hadn’t realised Reform were at such long odds.
Yep. They opened at 2.8 and have drifted to 7.2. That's huge if it's close.
But it’s not. On PB those who understand politics have backed Burnham from the start, whereas our now banned colleague is really the only one who thinks Reform might still win.
Is my feeling too. But there are plenty of 'it's close' takes around. Albeit not being supported with £££ given the big Reform price.
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.
Trouble with that is £30 is meagre compensation for the country falling off a cliff.
That just tells us you’ve missized your bet by failing to assess the actual NEV to you of those adverse political outcomes.
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".
That's within my prediction for Restore Britain of 2% to 12% (or so).
If his staff are sensible they will have rigged up a fake nuclear button in their bunker that makes lots of impressive noises when it’s pressed but otherwise connects to absolutely nothing at all.
Re: AMOC collapse. It's worth making a few points.
Firstly, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans both have mid-latitude storm tracks, even though the Pacific doesn't have an equivalent to the AMOC. The storm tracks exist because the tropics are warmer than the poles, and the coriolis force limits the poleward extent of the Hadley circulation. Therefore you have a strong temperature gradient which creates a strong westerly thermal wind, a large amount of baroclinic instability and consequently a storm track, which has two effects which are relevant to us here: it mixes a lot of heat towards the poles, and it creates an ocean gyre circulation (which is why the west coast of North America is warmer than the east coast of Asia).
If the AMOC collapses the Atlantic will still have a storm track and it will still have an ocean gyre circulation that makes the west coast of Europe warmer than the east coast of North America.
What might change is the latitude of the storm track. The Atlantic storm track has a more pronounced SW to NE tilt than the Pacific storm track and it's not obvious how much of that is due to differences in the shape of the ocean basins, or due to changes in SSTs due to the AMOC. So the storm track could shift south and Britain might see both a reduction in warming from the AMOC directly, and end up on the poleward side of the storm track and miss out on the heating from that too.
There are lots of other effects at play too. I did see one paper arguing for a link between reduced solar activity and more frequent winter easterlies over Britain, for example.
The other thing to point out is that these effects would be much more influential in winter. So a reduction in winter mean temperatures of 15C, but little difference the rest of the year, would equate to an annual mean temperature change of 3.75C. Similarly, an annual mean temperature change of 1.5C could equate to a winter mean temperature change of 4C.
For context, the warmest winter in the Central England temperature record had a mean temperature of 6.83C (2016) and the coldest winter had a mean temperature of -1.17C (1684), a difference of only 8C. The coldest winter this century was 2.53C (2010). [Meteorological winters, DJF, are by convention dated by the year of January, so winter 2016 was December 2015 - February 2016.]
The most important thing to do is to improve the insulation of British homes. We'd better survive the direct impact of an AMOC collapse, it would reduce home heating costs, improve living temperatures and reduce damp in homes, improving winter health, reduce fossil fuel use, and make British homes more suitable to be heated by heat pumps rather than fossil fuels, helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that may tip the AMOC over the edge.
This has, of course, been obvious for decades, and progress has been relatively poor.
Instead, many pensioners are provided with a winter fuel allowance to spend on fossil fuels. Go figure.
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.
Trouble with that is £30 is meagre compensation for the country falling off a cliff.
That just tells us you’ve missized your bet by failing to assess the actual NEV to you of those adverse political outcomes.
Mmm. So I'd need to put £500k on!
Lol.
Logically, if the probability of economic devastation after a Reform by-election win were very high, and your personal exposure to economic calamity also very high, then yes, you absolutely should. But of course it’s just a by-election, a Reform win might not have any more long-term consequences than all those Liberal/SDP alliance by-election wins in times past, maybe a Reform government would be just as hemmed in as to what it can or cannot do as all our other governments, and maybe you’re not as personally exposed to financial downturn as many more ordinary folks?
If you did all these sums properly you should be able to zero in on the range of an appropriately sized bet.
If his staff are sensible they will have rigged up a fake nuclear button in their bunker that makes lots of impressive noises when it’s pressed but otherwise connects to absolutely nothing at all.
And, if we can then say to Mr President that he can never, ever, leave that bunker because it's too radioactive outside... an elegant solution to our problems presents itself.
Persuading JDV of the same thing as well would be even better.
If his staff are sensible they will have rigged up a fake nuclear button in their bunker that makes lots of impressive noises when it’s pressed but otherwise connects to absolutely nothing at all.
They made "arrangements" for Nixon near the end. Let us hope they have made arrangements this time.
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".
It's great when PB turns up posts like this, reminds me why I still scroll here most days.
Threw a few quid on Reform on the back of this at 6/1. I still expect to lose, and frankly, if Reform do win here I think it's probably my final kick up the arse to emigrate before the fourth reich are upon us. But a value bet is a value bet.
My guess is it will still be Burnham but a lot closer than the odds suggest.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
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'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.
Trouble with that is £30 is meagre compensation for the country falling off a cliff.
That just tells us you’ve missized your bet by failing to assess the actual NEV to you of those adverse political outcomes.
Mmm. So I'd need to put £500k on!
Lol.
Logically, if the probability of economic devastation after a Reform by-election win were very high, and your personal exposure to economic calamity also very high, then yes, you absolutely should. But of course it’s just a by-election, a Reform win might not have any more long-term consequences than all those Liberal/SDP alliance by-election wins in times past, maybe a Reform government would be just as hemmed in as to what it can or cannot do as all our other governments, and maybe you’re not as personally exposed to financial downturn as many more ordinary folks?
If you did all these sums properly you should be able to zero in on the range of an appropriately sized bet.
But how to price the emotional distress of this country that I love going bad? Very tricky modelling task.
Any case, not to worry, Burnham's winning and I'm on at 1.68.
Re: AMOC collapse. It's worth making a few points.
Firstly, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans both have mid-latitude storm tracks, even though the Pacific doesn't have an equivalent to the AMOC. The storm tracks exist because the tropics are warmer than the poles, and the coriolis force limits the poleward extent of the Hadley circulation. Therefore you have a strong temperature gradient which creates a strong westerly thermal wind, a large amount of baroclinic instability and consequently a storm track, which has two effects which are relevant to us here: it mixes a lot of heat towards the poles, and it creates an ocean gyre circulation (which is why the west coast of North America is warmer than the east coast of Asia).
If the AMOC collapses the Atlantic will still have a storm track and it will still have an ocean gyre circulation that makes the west coast of Europe warmer than the east coast of North America.
What might change is the latitude of the storm track. The Atlantic storm track has a more pronounced SW to NE tilt than the Pacific storm track and it's not obvious how much of that is due to differences in the shape of the ocean basins, or due to changes in SSTs due to the AMOC. So the storm track could shift south and Britain might see both a reduction in warming from the AMOC directly, and end up on the poleward side of the storm track and miss out on the heating from that too.
There are lots of other effects at play too. I did see one paper arguing for a link between reduced solar activity and more frequent winter easterlies over Britain, for example.
The other thing to point out is that these effects would be much more influential in winter. So a reduction in winter mean temperatures of 15C, but little difference the rest of the year, would equate to an annual mean temperature change of 3.75C. Similarly, an annual mean temperature change of 1.5C could equate to a winter mean temperature change of 4C.
For context, the warmest winter in the Central England temperature record had a mean temperature of 6.83C (2016) and the coldest winter had a mean temperature of -1.17C (1684), a difference of only 8C. The coldest winter this century was 2.53C (2010). [Meteorological winters, DJF, are by convention dated by the year of January, so winter 2016 was December 2015 - February 2016.]
The most important thing to do is to improve the insulation of British homes. We'd better survive the direct impact of an AMOC collapse, it would reduce home heating costs, improve living temperatures and reduce damp in homes, improving winter health, reduce fossil fuel use, and make British homes more suitable to be heated by heat pumps rather than fossil fuels, helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that may tip the AMOC over the edge.
This has, of course, been obvious for decades, and progress has been relatively poor.
Instead, many pensioners are provided with a winter fuel allowance to spend on fossil fuels. Go figure.
A couple of weeks back I spent a fair few days lying in bed looking at was clearly the underside of the roof tiles that lined the roof of the Italian property I was staying in, built in modern times but intended to be sympathetic to the medieval village to which is was adjacent. They hadn’t seen any need to insulate the roof beneath its surface at all, and had one of the toof tiles been removed I would have been in bed looking straight up at the sky. I didn’t finish thinking through whether this made sense, given their climate, or not.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
It goes without saying that the lying murderer was a very bad man who used a vile racial ploy to hoodwink the police. He is a c***, but I don't know if he is a racist.
That's actually quite a good letter (considerably better than her standard social media postings). The question, though, is how much impact it's had/ will have. I did note that the polling shows a considerable gender split in the support for Reform, so may have had some.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
That's actually quite a good letter (considerably better than her standard social media postings). The question, though, is how much impact it's had/ will have. I did note that the polling shows a considerable gender split in the support for Reform, so may have had some.
Perhaps a bigger question is does this set a precedent that could lead to people of wealth and influence bypassing electoral spending rules? You can’t pay people to vote by Musk organised a lottery for people who registered.
What’s to stop a celebrity backed by a Crypto investor abroad writing a “Heartfelt!” Letter in an election campaign?
That's actually quite a good letter (considerably better than her standard social media postings). The question, though, is how much impact it's had/ will have. I did note that the polling shows a considerable gender split in the support for Reform, so may have had some.
I'd put it at "some votes at the margins" - maybe up to hundreds on top of other factors. I can see women thinking about their daughters being influenced, and Carol Vorderman has profile amongst older people from 26 years of Countdown, and also online. The British Crime Survey numbers are that the percentage of women who report sexual harassment in one form or another is a large majority. Voting is also an act that can be done without having to deal with police or personal consequences.
But others here are far better at that sort of estimate than me, and know far better how voters behave.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
If his staff are sensible they will have rigged up a fake nuclear button in their bunker that makes lots of impressive noises when it’s pressed but otherwise connects to absolutely nothing at all.
They made "arrangements" for Nixon near the end. Let us hope they have made arrangements this time.
Anyway, if true, Reform (like The Greens) really needs to professionalise their vetting.
‘ EXCLUSIVE: Reform UK is vetting candidates for the Greater Manchester mayoral position.
Andy Burnham, the current Mayor of Greater Manchester, is Labour’s candidate for the Makerfield by-election. In the event that he wins the by-election, he will have to resign from his position as Mayor of Greater Manchester.
Sources at Reform HQ have told me that the party believes Andy Burnham will win with a "massive majority." One source added: "Restore Britain has lost us this election. We have to learn and understand why people are choosing them over us."
The party wants to select a local candidate for the mayoral race potentially someone like Dan Barker, who stood for the position in 2024 and is a member of the party’s board.
That's actually quite a good letter (considerably better than her standard social media postings). The question, though, is how much impact it's had/ will have. I did note that the polling shows a considerable gender split in the support for Reform, so may have had some.
Perhaps a bigger question is does this set a precedent that could lead to people of wealth and influence bypassing electoral spending rules? You can’t pay people to vote by Musk organised a lottery for people who registered.
What’s to stop a celebrity backed by a Crypto investor abroad writing a “Heartfelt!” Letter in an election campaign?
Peter.
Well, one thing that stops this idea is that it won't persuade most people most of the time. Vorderman was the target of Kenyon's tweeting and that gives her voice some weight. I don't think most random celebrities are going to have much impact.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
Anyway, if true, Reform (like The Greens) really needs to professionalise their vetting.
‘ EXCLUSIVE: Reform UK is vetting candidates for the Greater Manchester mayoral position.
Andy Burnham, the current Mayor of Greater Manchester, is Labour’s candidate for the Makerfield by-election. In the event that he wins the by-election, he will have to resign from his position as Mayor of Greater Manchester.
Sources at Reform HQ have told me that the party believes Andy Burnham will win with a "massive majority." One source added: "Restore Britain has lost us this election. We have to learn and understand why people are choosing them over us."
The party wants to select a local candidate for the mayoral race potentially someone like Dan Barker, who stood for the position in 2024 and is a member of the party’s board.
'One source added: "Restore Britain has lost us this election. We have to learn and understand why people are choosing them over us."
Based on some Restore posters on X as too many non white figures at the top of Reform like Yusuf and as Reform aren't hardline enough on mass deportations. So such 'learning' might see Reform have to head even further right, leaving a gap in the centre for the Tories and Labour to occupy
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
Oddly enough her anger towards Kenyon over his comment does not seem to be replicated towards the person who posted the original comment.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
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".
Can I use this comment for the morning thread ?
Call me a cynic, but don't canvassers always report that "it is very tight" in order to motivate their voters and workers?
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
Oddly enough her anger towards Kenyon over his comment does not seem to be replicated towards the person who posted the original comment.
The person who posted the original comment is not standing for election.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
Oddly enough her anger towards Kenyon over his comment does not seem to be replicated towards the person who posted the original comment.
The person who posted the original comment is not standing for election.
And ?
Heaven forbid her anger is possibly synthetic and politically motivated.
When will Trump be announcing his wonderful peace deai that was allegedly only hours away about 3 weeks ago ?
The fxckwit was duped by Netenyahu who is determined to ensure there’s no peace deal . The only thing the war criminal would understand is if the US stopped shipping weapons to Israel.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
Oddly enough her anger towards Kenyon over his comment does not seem to be replicated towards the person who posted the original comment.
The person who posted the original comment is not standing for election.
And ?
So why would she write a letter to the people of Makersfield about him?
This is obvious, Taz. Why are you moaning about it?
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Bomb the bastard out of his bunker
If Iran do that to Trump's bunker that's WW3 guaranteed.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Did Trump really get sweary or was that all a convenient story for both US and Israeli domestic consumption.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
The numbers come from Lowe's own declaration of income to Parliament. What was he denying in the interview? His own submission?
To be fair, the amount was only over £10k one month. He's averaging £6,600.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
Twitter does pay based on engagement accounts get. It’s not a wage or something sinister, as implied, it’s ad revenue sharing. YouTube does similar.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
The numbers come from Lowe's own declaration of income to Parliament. What was he denying in the interview? His own submission?
To be fair, the amount was only over £10k one month. He's averaging £6,600.
I think he was denying that Musk had boosted his (Lowe's) Twitter presence.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Did Trump really get sweary or was that all a convenient story for both US and Israeli domestic consumption.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
I suspect if she were Boris Johnson we could laugh it off as irony or satire.
Anyway she gets absolutely hounded and threatened with rape and murder by disciples of Tiny Tom (she calls him Ewok Powell). So I am guessing all is good?
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
AI (2 sources) says it is on his disclosure of financial interests as an MP (I'm not going to read all the PDFs myself) - £72k since the election, and £10k+ in April 2026. Since it is an authoritative source, I would trust the number.
So it is one month not continuous, but may persist if Musk continues to "Puff Lowe".
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
Twitter does pay based on engagement accounts get. It’s not a wage or something sinister, as implied, it’s ad revenue sharing. YouTube does similar.
X pays based on engagement. Musk promotes Lowe, so Lowe gets more engagement. Then X pays Lowe more money.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Did Trump really get sweary or was that all a convenient story for both US and Israeli domestic consumption.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
I suspect if she were Boris Johnson we could laugh it off as irony or satire.
Anyway she gets absolutely hounded and threatened with rape and murder by disciples of Tiny Tom (she calls him Ewok Powell). So I am guessing all is good?
I am so glad I don't know who any of these people are.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Did Trump really get sweary or was that all a convenient story for both US and Israeli domestic consumption.
If his staff are sensible they will have rigged up a fake nuclear button in their bunker that makes lots of impressive noises when it’s pressed but otherwise connects to absolutely nothing at all.
And, if we can then say to Mr President that he can never, ever, leave that bunker because it's too radioactive outside... an elegant solution to our problems presents itself.
Persuading JDV of the same thing as well would be even better.
... And that's why the doors to the bunker are made of pure gold, Mister President. To keep you safe from the radiation. Now - before they close we just need to go outside and do one final perimeter sweep in case Hilary is near. We'll... try our best to get back before you are entombed. God bless you, Mister President.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
I suspect if she were Boris Johnson we could laugh it off as irony or satire.
Anyway she gets absolutely hounded and threatened with rape and murder by disciples of Tiny Tom (she calls him Ewok Powell). So I am guessing all is good?
I am so glad I don't know who any of these people are.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
Twitter does pay based on engagement accounts get. It’s not a wage or something sinister, as implied, it’s ad revenue sharing. YouTube does similar.
X pays based on engagement. Musk promotes Lowe, so Lowe gets more engagement. Then X pays Lowe more money.
Twitter has always promoted some accounts and shadow banned others.
If you get promoted by a big account you make more money.
[1] as defined by HTTP requests distribution to HTML content. Other definitions are available.
The "Dead internet theory" is looking ever more true. At least as far as Social Media is concerned.
To tie that in to one of my pet theories ("algorithmic feeds are killing us"), @Luckyguy1983 posted a link to a nuclear scientist earlier. I couldn't get through the whole thing (two hours long) so I looked at the others in that YouTube channel (Peter McCormack) and one of them I looked at was a Frank Wright interview. The first few words of that interview are instructive
FW: It's reality that's radicalizing people and it isn't really my moment. It's not about me.
PMcC: I was on my feed and I saw it and then I saw it again and I saw it again and I saw it again.
FW: The reason why it became so popular is because it just speaks to the reality that we all have to inhabit. Basically, noticing reality is extremist...
This is the problem all over. the reality depicted to us by algorithmic feeds is not real reality, it's a list of absolute values (or bot fictions!) delivered without the cues that would enable us to put it in context (eg relative values), and designed to enrage us, which it promptly does. One of the myths underlying a nation is that we believe the same things and pull in the same direction. But in a nation of 68 million people at least one stupid/daft/evil thing will happen every day. What do we do when we are presented daily with examples of individuals who believe otherwise? We go quietly insane.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Did Trump really get sweary or was that all a convenient story for both US and Israeli domestic consumption.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Did Trump really get sweary or was that all a convenient story for both US and Israeli domestic consumption.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
I suspect if she were Boris Johnson we could laugh it off as irony or satire.
Anyway she gets absolutely hounded and threatened with rape and murder by disciples of Tiny Tom (she calls him Ewok Powell). So I am guessing all is good?
I wouldn’t know. She’s an idiot and I blocked her long ago. When Corbyn was Labour leader.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
The numbers come from Lowe's own declaration of income to Parliament. What was he denying in the interview? His own submission?
To be fair, the amount was only over £10k one month. He's averaging £6,600.
I think he was denying that Musk had boosted his (Lowe's) Twitter presence.
Musk has re-tweeted Lowe and publicly supported him. These acts clearly boost Lowe's Twitter presence.
X has been engineered to boost Musk's posts. This is well reported. The platform preferentially pushes Musk's thoughts to people. Grok is programmed to consider Musk's comments above other data. Anyone Musk supports benefits from this.
Does X boost Lowe's account in additional ways, directly pushing it? We don't know. Lowe has denied it. It would be consistent with what Musk has done with X. For example, we know Musk has directly intervened on other radical right accounts, inviting people back to the platform who have been banned and handing out blue tick marks.
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".
In Makerfield there is a sense of voters having made their minds up at the start of the campaign, a Labour source said, with Reform candidate Rob Kenyon’s unearthed social media remarks not moving the dial:
“I don’t know that it matters that much to the people voting Reform”
So is Reform going to give up on broadening its base because it’s now terrified of Restore?
Reform didn't seem that interested in broadening their base before, did they? They seemed to prefer blaming electoral defeat on false claims of electoral fraud. (I wonder where they got that idea from?)
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
I suspect if she were Boris Johnson we could laugh it off as irony or satire.
Anyway she gets absolutely hounded and threatened with rape and murder by disciples of Tiny Tom (she calls him Ewok Powell). So I am guessing all is good?
I wouldn’t know. She’s an idiot and I blocked her long ago. When Corbyn was Labour leader.
Dystopia warning (obviously) I quite like her. I would imagine she was very pro Corbyn.
That's actually quite a good letter (considerably better than her standard social media postings). The question, though, is how much impact it's had/ will have. I did note that the polling shows a considerable gender split in the support for Reform, so may have had some.
I'd put it at "some votes at the margins" - maybe up to hundreds on top of other factors. I can see women thinking about their daughters being influenced, and Carol Vorderman has profile amongst older people from 26 years of Countdown, and also online. The British Crime Survey numbers are that the percentage of women who report sexual harassment in one form or another is a large majority. Voting is also an act that can be done without having to deal with police or personal consequences.
But others here are far better at that sort of estimate than me, and know far better how voters behave.
I have no idea what effect the letter will have, but there is a principle involved, which Kenyon will now perhaps comprehend. If you put a comment about a named individual into the public domain (which he did by retweeting and remarking) which can be read by anyone on the planet with internet access, the named person is entitled to comment on it to the same, and a fortiori a smaller, audience. The letter may be politically motivated, but so what? Kenyon too is politically motivated when he tries to minimise his culpability.
"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.)
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.
Thank you. (I think there is a missing "not" in your final sentence, no?)
The book was inaccurate on that point then or I misread it, which is quite possible. What was the reason for downgrading the unit? My impression - but I may have got this wrong - was that the hospital management was rather resistant to the concerns raised and an external inspection did not raise concerns either.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
I think Musk's ramping of Lowe on Twitter represents a greater challenge to the election rules. I don't mean in terms of personally endorsing him, but in terms of how Twitter selectively promotes voices Musk agrees with. Meanwhile, X is paying Lowe over £10,000 per month.
Knowing nothing about Twitter (I have a rarely used professional account, but have never posted personally), is this verifiable? I believe it, but Lowe angrily denied it in an interview with Times Radio, so I guess it must at least be deniable?
Twitter does pay based on engagement accounts get. It’s not a wage or something sinister, as implied, it’s ad revenue sharing. YouTube does similar.
X pays based on engagement. Musk promotes Lowe, so Lowe gets more engagement. Then X pays Lowe more money.
Twitter has always promoted some accounts and shadow banned others.
If you get promoted by a big account you make more money.
👍
And now X and Musk are doing it with the deliberate aim of affecting our election results, and in ways they may be illegal under UK election law.
Bibi no longer fears a backlash from the US. Trump may have got a bit sweary last week but Bibi knows there are no sanctions for Bibi exercising his military strength.
Did Trump really get sweary or was that all a convenient story for both US and Israeli domestic consumption.
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
I suspect if she were Boris Johnson we could laugh it off as irony or satire.
Anyway she gets absolutely hounded and threatened with rape and murder by disciples of Tiny Tom (she calls him Ewok Powell). So I am guessing all is good?
I wouldn’t know. She’s an idiot and I blocked her long ago. When Corbyn was Labour leader.
Dystopia warning (obviously) I quite like her. I would imagine she was very pro Corbyn.
I told you PB doesn't like her.
No, she was not a fan.
I try to tailor my Twitter to old TV, Pro wrestling, old football and investing. Politics I give a wide berth as a rule.
I don't think we have covered it. Carol Vorderman is very very deep into the left wing/wealth tax/HNH nexus, and her and her associates will have been delighted that there was a personal connection for her to exploit. I see it as contrary to the spirit of election rules if not the letter,
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
Oddly enough her anger towards Kenyon over his comment does not seem to be replicated towards the person who posted the original comment.
The person who posted the original comment is not standing for election.
And ?
Heaven forbid her anger is possibly synthetic and politically motivated.
Not as synthetic as your 'And?'
BTW, what's wrong with political motives? Does Kenyon have political motives in seeking to minimise his culpability?
Just in case you weren’t aware, the so called “patriots” are now calling Henry Nowak’s sister a “mud shark race traitor” because she has a mixed race child.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
Trump tells Axios: “I'm calling Netanyahu right now and telling him not to attack Iran in response."
Same interview with Axios: “The Iranian missile fire didn't hit anyone. I hope Israel doesn't respond. If Bibi attacks them back, it'll just drag on like it has for the past 47 years, or the past 3,000 years."
“We're very close to a final deal with Iran. It'll be a good deal. I don't want it to blow up because of what's happening now."
“I'm about to call Bibi right now and tell him not to respond. Both of them have already done their part. Israel had its strike and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one."
Trump’s self-preservation vs his relationship with Netanyahu.
This feels like a massive opportunity for Labour and the Tories to re-establish themselves as the duopoly.
They are still the duopoly - they have 530 MPs between them and 8,500 out of some 18,000 councillors.
Yes, Reform have made progress in polls and some council seats but they've not yet broken through (any more than the various incarnations of LDs or Greens ever managed more than a limited breakthrough).
It's obviously in the interests of both Labour and Conservative (whose relationship is at its most fundamental level symbiotic) to keep Reform, LDs and others suppressed and I imagine deep down few in the Conservative camp will be disappointed to see Farage knocked back several notches even if, in Burnham, they have a more resilient opponent across the floor of the Commons.
This feels like a massive opportunity for Labour and the Tories to re-establish themselves as the duopoly.
They are still the duopoly - they have 530 MPs between them and 8,500 out of some 18,000 councillors.
Yes, Reform have made progress in polls and some council seats but they've not yet broken through (any more than the various incarnations of LDs or Greens ever managed more than a limited breakthrough).
It's obviously in the interests of both Labour and Conservative (whose relationship is at its most fundamental level symbiotic) to keep Reform, LDs and others suppressed and I imagine deep down few in the Conservative camp will be disappointed to see Farage knocked back several notches even if, in Burnham, they have a more resilient opponent across the floor of the Commons.
Less than half of all councillors between them rather illustrates how they have lost their duopoly. (As well as less than a fifth of Senedd seats and less than a quarter of Scottish Parliament seats.)
Comments
Kitty Donaldson
@kitty_donaldson
In Makerfield there is a sense of voters having made their minds up at the start of the campaign, a Labour source said, with Reform candidate Rob Kenyon’s unearthed social media remarks not moving the dial:
“I don’t know that it matters that much to the people voting Reform”
https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/2063588877965636073
(Cute, if I do say so myself, but is it true?)
You need to put a cash value on the happiness you will get from certain outcomes, or the opposite, and then factor that into your NEV. Hence I tend to bet against the LibDems because if they do badly my bet comes off and I have money to spend, and if they do well then the value to me of the resulting happiness cancels out the adverse financial consequences.
I was not expecting THAT.
Letter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HJqrYeDXIAMgcOX?format=jpg&name=medium
Manchester Evening news article:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/i-swaying-towards-reform-until-34075678
(Updated)
Tom Nichols
@RadioFreeTom
·
2h
Emotionally unstable man goes on paranoid, babbling rant.
Somewhere in that suit, he has a small card with the codes to 1500 strategic nuclear weapons.
https://x.com/RadioFreeTom/status/2063654813821268011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW-DwquXSY8
Firstly, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans both have mid-latitude storm tracks, even though the Pacific doesn't have an equivalent to the AMOC. The storm tracks exist because the tropics are warmer than the poles, and the coriolis force limits the poleward extent of the Hadley circulation. Therefore you have a strong temperature gradient which creates a strong westerly thermal wind, a large amount of baroclinic instability and consequently a storm track, which has two effects which are relevant to us here: it mixes a lot of heat towards the poles, and it creates an ocean gyre circulation (which is why the west coast of North America is warmer than the east coast of Asia).
If the AMOC collapses the Atlantic will still have a storm track and it will still have an ocean gyre circulation that makes the west coast of Europe warmer than the east coast of North America.
What might change is the latitude of the storm track. The Atlantic storm track has a more pronounced SW to NE tilt than the Pacific storm track and it's not obvious how much of that is due to differences in the shape of the ocean basins, or due to changes in SSTs due to the AMOC. So the storm track could shift south and Britain might see both a reduction in warming from the AMOC directly, and end up on the poleward side of the storm track and miss out on the heating from that too.
There are lots of other effects at play too. I did see one paper arguing for a link between reduced solar activity and more frequent winter easterlies over Britain, for example.
The other thing to point out is that these effects would be much more influential in winter. So a reduction in winter mean temperatures of 15C, but little difference the rest of the year, would equate to an annual mean temperature change of 3.75C. Similarly, an annual mean temperature change of 1.5C could equate to a winter mean temperature change of 4C.
For context, the warmest winter in the Central England temperature record had a mean temperature of 6.83C (2016) and the coldest winter had a mean temperature of -1.17C (1684), a difference of only 8C. The coldest winter this century was 2.53C (2010). [Meteorological winters, DJF, are by convention dated by the year of January, so winter 2016 was December 2015 - February 2016.]
The most important thing to do is to improve the insulation of British homes. We'd better survive the direct impact of an AMOC collapse, it would reduce home heating costs, improve living temperatures and reduce damp in homes, improving winter health, reduce fossil fuel use, and make British homes more suitable to be heated by heat pumps rather than fossil fuels, helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that may tip the AMOC over the edge.
This has, of course, been obvious for decades, and progress has been relatively poor.
Instead, many pensioners are provided with a winter fuel allowance to spend on fossil fuels. Go figure.
Logically, if the probability of economic devastation after a Reform by-election win were very high, and your personal exposure to economic calamity also very high, then yes, you absolutely should. But of course it’s just a by-election, a Reform win might not have any more long-term consequences than all those Liberal/SDP alliance by-election wins in times past, maybe a Reform government would be just as hemmed in as to what it can or cannot do as all our other governments, and maybe you’re not as personally exposed to financial downturn as many more ordinary folks?
If you did all these sums properly you should be able to zero in on the range of an appropriately sized bet.
Persuading JDV of the same thing as well would be even better.
Threw a few quid on Reform on the back of this at 6/1. I still expect to lose, and frankly, if Reform do win here I think it's probably my final kick up the arse to emigrate before the fourth reich are upon us. But a value bet is a value bet.
My guess is it will still be Burnham but a lot closer than the odds suggest.
The “protests” in Southampton aren’t about his death.
They’re about rabid racism and male violence.
https://x.com/supertanskiii/status/2063649567405384155
Any case, not to worry, Burnham's winning and I'm on at 1.68.
https://news.sky.com/story/danish-footballer-christian-eriksen-collapses-on-pitch-13551755
I am guessing Tan Smith isn't a PB favourite.
What’s to stop a celebrity backed by a Crypto investor abroad writing a “Heartfelt!” Letter in an election campaign?
Peter.
But others here are far better at that sort of estimate than me, and know far better how voters behave.
https://x.com/rlk303303/status/1955763281035190511?s=61
Looks like the ceasefire is done and, in the words of Chris Morris.
It’s War.
Peter.
He has been right a few times but…..
Anyway, if true, Reform (like The Greens) really needs to professionalise their vetting.
‘ EXCLUSIVE: Reform UK is vetting candidates for the Greater Manchester mayoral position.
Andy Burnham, the current Mayor of Greater Manchester, is Labour’s candidate for the Makerfield by-election. In the event that he wins the by-election, he will have to resign from his position as Mayor of Greater Manchester.
Sources at Reform HQ have told me that the party believes Andy Burnham will win with a "massive majority." One source added: "Restore Britain has lost us this election. We have to learn and understand why people are choosing them over us."
The party wants to select a local candidate for the mayoral race potentially someone like Dan Barker, who stood for the position in 2024 and is a member of the party’s board.
https://x.com/charliesimpsona/status/2063675370356854877?s=61
Israel says it has intercepted all missiles from Iran so far and will retaliate
Bombs raining down on Jerusalem and Tehran.
I don't think it will really move the dial, because I think we live in a very cynical age. Those who will be appalled by the content of Carol's letter and not see it as a clever and opportunistic piece of campaigning will fit almost entirely into those already planning to vote for Burnham. With maybe a couple already planning to vote for Lowe.
Israel is reported, by NYT, to be spying on its allies.
https://x.com/marionawfal/status/2063421429115244613?s=61
Based on some Restore posters on X as too many non white figures at the top of Reform like Yusuf and as Reform aren't hardline enough on mass deportations. So such 'learning' might see Reform have to head even further right, leaving a gap in the centre for the Tories and Labour to occupy
https://radar.cloudflare.com/traffic?dateStart=2026-04-01&dateEnd=2026-06-07
[1] as defined by HTTP requests distribution to HTML content. Other definitions are available.
🤔
Heaven forbid her anger is possibly synthetic and politically motivated.
The fxckwit was duped by Netenyahu who is determined to ensure there’s no peace deal . The only thing the war criminal would understand is if the US stopped shipping weapons to Israel.
This is obvious, Taz. Why are you moaning about it?
To be fair, the amount was only over £10k one month. He's averaging £6,600.
https://bsky.app/profile/bcfinucane.bsky.social/post/3mnpxw5redk2x
Anyway she gets absolutely hounded and threatened with rape and murder by disciples of Tiny Tom (she calls him Ewok Powell). So I am guessing all is good?
So it is one month not continuous, but may persist if Musk continues to "Puff Lowe".
You beat me to it. Just saw it on Twitter
What the fuck is going on. It’s like living in a Twilight Zone episode.
If you get promoted by a big account you make more money.
👍
- FW: It's reality that's radicalizing people and it isn't really my moment. It's not about me.
- PMcC: I was on my feed and I saw it and then I saw it again and I saw it again and I saw it again.
- FW: The reason why it became so popular is because it just speaks to the reality that we all have to inhabit. Basically, noticing reality is extremist...
This is the problem all over. the reality depicted to us by algorithmic feeds is not real reality, it's a list of absolute values (or bot fictions!) delivered without the cues that would enable us to put it in context (eg relative values), and designed to enrage us, which it promptly does. One of the myths underlying a nation is that we believe the same things and pull in the same direction. But in a nation of 68 million people at least one stupid/daft/evil thing will happen every day. What do we do when we are presented daily with examples of individuals who believe otherwise? We go quietly insane.X has been engineered to boost Musk's posts. This is well reported. The platform preferentially pushes Musk's thoughts to people. Grok is programmed to consider Musk's comments above other data. Anyone Musk supports benefits from this.
Does X boost Lowe's account in additional ways, directly pushing it? We don't know. Lowe has denied it. It would be consistent with what Musk has done with X. For example, we know Musk has directly intervened on other radical right accounts, inviting people back to the platform who have been banned and handing out blue tick marks.
Also shows that the Labour brand is not toxic. Just Starmer.
I told you PB doesn't like her.
It's Makerfield. No s.
The book was inaccurate on that point then or I misread it, which is quite possible. What was the reason for downgrading the unit? My impression - but I may have got this wrong - was that the hospital management was rather resistant to the concerns raised and an external inspection did not raise concerns either.
I try to tailor my Twitter to old TV, Pro wrestling, old football and investing. Politics I give a wide berth as a rule.
BTW, what's wrong with political motives? Does Kenyon have political motives in seeking to minimise his culpability?
Same interview with Axios: “The Iranian missile fire didn't hit anyone. I hope Israel doesn't respond. If Bibi attacks them back, it'll just drag on like it has for the past 47 years, or the past 3,000 years."
“We're very close to a final deal with Iran. It'll be a good deal. I don't want it to blow up because of what's happening now."
“I'm about to call Bibi right now and tell him not to respond. Both of them have already done their part. Israel had its strike and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one."
Trump’s self-preservation vs his relationship with Netanyahu.
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mnpyt7renk2o
Yes, Reform have made progress in polls and some council seats but they've not yet broken through (any more than the various incarnations of LDs or Greens ever managed more than a limited breakthrough).
It's obviously in the interests of both Labour and Conservative (whose relationship is at its most fundamental level symbiotic) to keep Reform, LDs and others suppressed and I imagine deep down few in the Conservative camp will be disappointed to see Farage knocked back several notches even if, in Burnham, they have a more resilient opponent across the floor of the Commons.
Edit: Actually checking my weather station stats we only had 7 days in May with highs above 25°C but it was generally dry and sunny.