I'm now in a strange timeline where the woman who I mostly know of for doing the spelling and maths on Countdown is far more articulate and politically savvy than our current Prime Minister.
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?
What exactly is his culpability. He’s not denied it, or tried to downplay it. it was just a somewhat crass joke. Of course there’s a pattern with his tweets which is somewhat off putting.
He didn’t even aim the comment at her unlike the rather repulsive original tweet.
It certainly shows the need for some parties to get on top of their candidate vetting.
From what little I know, I would say Vickrum Digwa is probably a bigot -- but not necessarily a racist.
That's because I prefer to use "race" to categorize people, not by skin color, but by genetic distances. In this I follow Colin McEvedy's Penguin atlases. So, for example, in 8000 BC, according to his African History atlas, there were four main races in sub-Saharan Africa: Negroes, Nilo-Saharans, Pygmies, and San. All have better natural tans than I do.
In contrast, he would categorize both Europeans and most people from south Asia as Caucasians, the first light, the second dark.
Bigotry, on the other hand, can refer to different religions, as I suspect it did in Digwa's case.
(These heterodox views might get me in trouble on some American campuses, so I don't often speak about them.)
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.
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.)
If you add the LD numbers, it approaches two thirds of all councillors and there are still 2,600 Independent or Other Councillors.
The Reform and Greens combined still have fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
I'm now in a strange timeline where the woman who I mostly know of for doing the spelling and maths on Countdown is far more articulate and politically savvy than our current Prime Minister.
Someone's been tinkering with the Infinite Improbability Drive.
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.
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.)
If you add the LD numbers, it approaches two thirds of all councillors and there are still 2,600 Independent or Other Councillors.
The Reform and Greens combined still have fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
If you add the LD numbers, the duopoly word is clearly not applicable. I don’t see why independent or other councillors should be added either. They are outwith the duopoly too.
"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.
(on the missing not) I’m not sure where the missing not should go in that sentence, or even if one is required! It is a bit convoluted.
The point is that Letby was prevented from working on the ward very shortly after the ward was downgraded from level 2 to level 1, so it’s not true that the high death rate continued during the period when the unit was taking only level 1 babies. I believe all of the deaths Letby was charged with occurred whilst the unit was taking level 2 and above babies, i.e. those requiring intensive care.
IIRC the cluster of deaths had prompted NHS management to request external review of the service. The PDF I linked to was written by that service & concerns whether their investigation could or should have acted differently, given that Letby had been convicted of murdering many of the children in question.
I would guess that management was split between following procedure & trying to work out what to do about the accusations.
The review found significant problems with the unit. It was understaffed (although not significantly worse than other units) and consultants were very rarely seen on the unit, despite the extreme care needs of the patients. There was also no formalised system to follow up on deaths on the ward & look for problems - poor management basically. Again, this is all summarised in the PDF I linked.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
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.)
If you add the LD numbers, it approaches two thirds of all councillors and there are still 2,600 Independent or Other Councillors.
The Reform and Greens combined still have fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
If you add the LD numbers, the duopoly word is clearly not applicable. I don’t see why independent or other councillors should be added either. They are outwith the duopoly too.
In local elections the duopoly is lost, but in national ones it is not yet.
83.9% of England and Wales constituencies are held by Lab or Tory.
Opinion polls indicate that will change next time, but opinion polls have flattered to deceive for upstart parties in the past.
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.
Personally, I don't like the cut of Restore's gib particularly. They represent a very radical and to me a wilfully punishing approach to the failure of multiculturalism - as if they want it to hurt. What I want to see is the Nigel (and Kemi) approach of equality before the law. 'Peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice'. I think once you have those, the issues solve themselves. Rupert Lowe himself has some good qualities but overwhelmingly seems incredibly vengeful. I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of him.
However, I don't see how you quantify what you've described as an election expense.
"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.
(on the missing not) I’m not sure where the missing not should go in that sentence, or even if one is required! It is a bit convoluted.
The point is that Letby was prevented from working on the ward very shortly after the ward was downgraded from level 2 to level 1, so it’s not true that the high death rate continued during the period when the unit was taking only level 1 babies. I believe all of the deaths Letby was charged with occurred whilst the unit was taking level 2 and above babies, i.e. those requiring intensive care.
IIRC the cluster of deaths had prompted NHS management to request external review of the service. The PDF I linked to was written by that service & concerns whether their investigation could or should have acted differently, given that Letby had been convicted of murdering many of the children in question.
I would guess that management was split between following procedure & trying to work out what to do about the accusations.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
"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.
(on the missing not) I’m not sure where the missing not should go in that sentence, or even if one is required! It is a bit convoluted.
The point is that Letby was prevented from working on the ward very shortly after the ward was downgraded from level 2 to level 1, so it’s not true that the high death rate continued during the period when the unit was taking only level 1 babies. I believe all of the deaths Letby was charged with occurred whilst the unit was taking level 2 and above babies, i.e. those requiring intensive care.
IIRC the cluster of deaths had prompted NHS management to request external review of the service. The PDF I linked to was written by that service & concerns whether their investigation could or should have acted differently, given that Letby had been convicted of murdering many of the children in question.
I would guess that management was split between following procedure & trying to work out what to do about the accusations.
The review found significant problems with the unit. It was understaffed (although not significantly worse than other units) and consultants were very rarely seen on the unit, despite the extreme care needs of the patients. There was also no formalised system to follow up on deaths on the ward & look for problems - poor management basically. Again, this is all summarised in the PDF I linked.
The shift in deaths occurring during the nights when Letby was on night shifts to in the day when Letby was on day shifts all occurred while the unit was taking level 2 and above.
The doctors repeatedly raised concerns about Letby and management, for a long time, point blank rejected those concerns.
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.
"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.
(on the missing not) I’m not sure where the missing not should go in that sentence, or even if one is required! It is a bit convoluted.
The point is that Letby was prevented from working on the ward very shortly after the ward was downgraded from level 2 to level 1, so it’s not true that the high death rate continued during the period when the unit was taking only level 1 babies. I believe all of the deaths Letby was charged with occurred whilst the unit was taking level 2 and above babies, i.e. those requiring intensive care.
IIRC the cluster of deaths had prompted NHS management to request external review of the service. The PDF I linked to was written by that service & concerns whether their investigation could or should have acted differently, given that Letby had been convicted of murdering many of the children in question.
I would guess that management was split between following procedure & trying to work out what to do about the accusations.
The review found significant problems with the unit. It was understaffed (although not significantly worse than other units) and consultants were very rarely seen on the unit, despite the extreme care needs of the patients. There was also no formalised system to follow up on deaths on the ward & look for problems - poor management basically. Again, this is all summarised in the PDF I linked.
NB. A little further Googling reveals this timeline on Reddit, which suggests that the 30th June was also Letby’s last day on the ward. They place the downgrade a week later, but the Thirlwell document I linked to suggests this downgrade actually occurred the same day as Letby’s last shift, if this Reddit timeline is correct.
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.)
If you add the LD numbers, it approaches two thirds of all councillors and there are still 2,600 Independent or Other Councillors.
The Reform and Greens combined still have fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
If you add the LD numbers, the duopoly word is clearly not applicable. I don’t see why independent or other councillors should be added either. They are outwith the duopoly too.
In local elections the duopoly is lost, but in national ones it is not yet.
83.9% of England and Wales constituencies are held by Lab or Tory.
Opinion polls indicate that will change next time, but opinion polls have flattered to deceive for upstart parties in the past.
Those in Scotland and Wales would say their national elections say otherwise.
There is no constitutional significance to the subset of constituencies in England & Wales, so that’s not the most useful figure. Labour and the Conservatives got the fewest seats between them at the 2024 general election since 1935, IIRC.
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.
[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.
One of the most profound things from that Tim Gregory interview is where he says that the UK not doing Net Zero at all would be better than doing it badly. Because if you believe in the principle of leading by example, at the moment, our example will be putting people off doing the same rather than encouraging them. That's a clever way of looking at it.
Regarding your second point, I didn't particularly warm to Frank Wright in that video. However, I also disagree with you, in that you appear to be arguing that the only thing wrong with the world is that we're viewing it via social media.
I think we can use history as our yardstick to look at what's going on today. History is a long story of civilisations coming and going, humans failing and falling forward. If our civilisation/country has stepped so profoundly away from the impetus to develop and thrive as a group, in as many ways as it has, I think we can call that extreme, and we can anticipate that something will probably happen to get us back on course.
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.
Personally, I don't like the cut of Restore's gib particularly. They represent a very radical and to me a wilfully punishing approach to the failure of multiculturalism - as if they want it to hurt. What I want to see is the Nigel (and Kemi) approach of equality before the law. 'Peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice'. I think once you have those, the issues solve themselves. Rupert Lowe himself has some good qualities but overwhelmingly seems incredibly vengeful. I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of him.
However, I don't see how you quantify what you've described as an election expense.
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.
Personally, I don't like the cut of Restore's gib particularly. They represent a very radical and to me a wilfully punishing approach to the failure of multiculturalism - as if they want it to hurt. What I want to see is the Nigel (and Kemi) approach of equality before the law. 'Peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice'. I think once you have those, the issues solve themselves. Rupert Lowe himself has some good qualities but overwhelmingly seems incredibly vengeful. I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of him.
However, I don't see how you quantify what you've described as an election expense.
[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.
...Regarding your second point, I didn't particularly warm to Frank Wright in that video. However, I also disagree with you, in that you appear to be arguing that the only thing wrong with the world is that we're viewing it via social media...
Hmm, fair point. But in return I would point out that algorithmic feeds, by enraging us, are making it difficult to sort things in terms of priority: which problem is serious, which problems can we fix, which problems do we fix first? If everything is apocalyptically serious, then nothing will get addressed because we are ricocheting from A to B to C to whatever.
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?
What exactly is his culpability. He’s not denied it, or tried to downplay it. it was just a somewhat crass joke. Of course there’s a pattern with his tweets which is somewhat off putting.
He didn’t even aim the comment at her unlike the rather repulsive original tweet.
It certainly shows the need for some parties to get on top of their candidate vetting.
Culpability? Putting the remark out to the planet under his name. It is not a joke. Think about it WRT your daughter or partner. It is an assault.
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.
I don't agree with this approach personally, largely because valuing happiness in sums of money doesn't work (turns out they're not fungible) and it also makes it impossible for me to run my investment portfolio (which betting is part of) without applying it to all the other pieces.
Political bets for genuine financial hedging, sure, although I don't remember one since Brexit.
I would make an exception for irrational fun bets e.g. on football where I have no expertise and may bet against Sunderland for example if I'm going to go and watch them. But in that case ironically I'm not thinking about NEV at all.
Christ! It's raining again. This morning it was strong winds. 7 June - and there's been about 3 days of summer so far. 👿
Of all the reasons you elicit our best wishes on this board, I'll be honest, complaining about the weather having chosen to settle in West Cumbria is probably not one of them.
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.
Personally, I don't like the cut of Restore's gib particularly. They represent a very radical and to me a wilfully punishing approach to the failure of multiculturalism - as if they want it to hurt. What I want to see is the Nigel (and Kemi) approach of equality before the law. 'Peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice'. I think once you have those, the issues solve themselves. Rupert Lowe himself has some good qualities but overwhelmingly seems incredibly vengeful. I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of him.
However, I don't see how you quantify what you've described as an election expense.
The Blob has a vengeful attitude towards a lot of people.
"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.
(on the missing not) I’m not sure where the missing not should go in that sentence, or even if one is required! It is a bit convoluted.
The point is that Letby was prevented from working on the ward very shortly after the ward was downgraded from level 2 to level 1, so it’s not true that the high death rate continued during the period when the unit was taking only level 1 babies. I believe all of the deaths Letby was charged with occurred whilst the unit was taking level 2 and above babies, i.e. those requiring intensive care.
IIRC the cluster of deaths had prompted NHS management to request external review of the service. The PDF I linked to was written by that service & concerns whether their investigation could or should have acted differently, given that Letby had been convicted of murdering many of the children in question.
I would guess that management was split between following procedure & trying to work out what to do about the accusations.
The review found significant problems with the unit. It was understaffed (although not significantly worse than other units) and consultants were very rarely seen on the unit, despite the extreme care needs of the patients. There was also no formalised system to follow up on deaths on the ward & look for problems - poor management basically. Again, this is all summarised in the PDF I linked.
Thanks again.
Visitors arriving tomorrow so will be busy. Have a series of visitors from now until end of July so what with that, trustee duties, gardening in those moments when not raining and endless bloody hospital visits, I will have to add this to list of Stuff To Read When I Have Time.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
"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.
(on the missing not) I’m not sure where the missing not should go in that sentence, or even if one is required! It is a bit convoluted.
The point is that Letby was prevented from working on the ward very shortly after the ward was downgraded from level 2 to level 1, so it’s not true that the high death rate continued during the period when the unit was taking only level 1 babies. I believe all of the deaths Letby was charged with occurred whilst the unit was taking level 2 and above babies, i.e. those requiring intensive care.
IIRC the cluster of deaths had prompted NHS management to request external review of the service. The PDF I linked to was written by that service & concerns whether their investigation could or should have acted differently, given that Letby had been convicted of murdering many of the children in question.
I would guess that management was split between following procedure & trying to work out what to do about the accusations.
The review found significant problems with the unit. It was understaffed (although not significantly worse than other units) and consultants were very rarely seen on the unit, despite the extreme care needs of the patients. There was also no formalised system to follow up on deaths on the ward & look for problems - poor management basically. Again, this is all summarised in the PDF I linked.
Thanks again.
Visitors arriving tomorrow so will be busy. Have a series of visitors from now until end of July so what with that, trustee duties, gardening in those moments when not raining and endless bloody hospital visits, I will have to add this to list of Stuff To Read When I Have Time.
I hope the weather improves for you. (And the rest of us.)
The list of the govt’s achievements is like a shopping list: “The thing about shopping lists is you write them down because you can never remember them”
(Rainier is begnning to clear up after the latest snow fall. It should be reasonably clear until about noon, Pacific Daylight Time, tomorrow. I rather like that the Grand Canyon camera site claims you can see 152 miles. Many in the list will not be operative until later this summer, of course.)
For some reason that list got shortened soon after I watched it, but the Rainier webcams are still working. Meanwhile, here's a commercial site tha claims to list all of the Naitonal Park webcams: https://www.yellowstone.co/allwebcams.htm
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Feels a bit weak to me not to demand Russia to withdraw and respect the Budapest Memorandum. It essentially acquiesces to Russia holding the ~one-fifth of Ukraine it currently occupies.
That's accepting that Russia is strong enough to force us to allow conquest of land in Europe. I think that's a dangerous precedent to set.
Reflecting on the Vorderman letter a little more, I think it highlights how crap Labour's comms continue to be, and the free run that they are giving Reform.
Kenyon's response is like Farage's talking points - it's bollocks.
His claim is along the lines 'these comments were all a long time ago, and I don't believe it now', but the whole lot are since 2020, and he wasn't 14 or 16, he was a man in his late 30s. And if he did not believe it now, he would apologise rather than obfuscate.
I don't think a word of it is credible - but from Starmer & Co we just get a tolerating silence.
On the MEN article there is the same thing - a couple of the vox pop's are around the Green Belt, and how the Govt will destroy it. But the Govt proposals are mainly around developing on predeveloped and now damaged parts of the Green Belt, and yet we hear no pushback on the term they used - the Grey Belt.
One amusing suggestion a friend has made is that they should get Vorderman to write their campaign letters, as she is a far better communicator than the entire Labour central operation, and seems already to have a decent editor.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Feels a bit weak to me not to demand Russia to withdraw and respect the Budapest Memorandum. It essentially acquiesces to Russia holding the ~one-fifth of Ukraine it currently occupies.
That's accepting that Russia is strong enough to force us to allow conquest of land in Europe. I think that's a dangerous precedent to set.
It is weak.
The EU position should include Russian to withdraw and respect the Budapest Memorandum, and Vladimir Putin to go on trial in the Hague.
However, some of it is also game playing. They know it is not acceptable to Russia, and therefore they want to appear to Trump to be being extremely reasonable, even generous. Personally, I think that's a dangerous game to play. But hey ho.
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.
In some respects, the country has already fallen off the cliff and is sliding down to an unknown future. We have tripled the debt/GDP ratio in the last 25 years. Since the solution on offer is Burnham or a fiscally left Reform, can't see the slide being stopped soon.
Reflecting on the Vorderman letter a little more, I think it highlights how crap Labour's comms continue to be, and the free run that they are giving Reform.
Kenyon's response is like Farage's talking points - it's bollocks.
His claim is along the lines 'these comments were all a long time ago, and I don't believe it now', but the whole lot are since 2020, and he wasn't 14 or 16, he was a man in his late 30s. And if he did not believe it now, he would apologise rather than obfuscate.
I don't think a word of it is credible - but from Starmer & Co we just get a tolerating silence.
On the MEN article there is the same thing - a couple of the vox pop's are around the Green Belt, and how the Govt will destroy it. But the Govt proposals are mainly around developing on predeveloped and now damaged parts of the Green Belt, and yet we hear no pushback on the term they used - the Grey Belt.
One amusing suggestion a friend has made is that they should get Vorderman to write their campaign letters, as she is a far better communicator than the entire Labour central operation, and seems already to have a decent editor.
Labour must not be seen to be acting in coordination with Vorderman, or it undermines the credibility of her letter. Their only option is to let the letter have the impact it will have.
Whatever the dictionary definition of "ceasefire" is, it isn't anything like we have in the Middle East.
There won't be peace in the Middle East unless President Trump can do what we did in Northern Ireland and persuade each side not to respond to attacks from the other side. Unless that can be done, and there are reports that Trump has tried unsuccessfully, the Middle East will never emerge from its deadly cycle of revenge and retaliation because there are always extremists on both sides, in positions of power, who claim to want peace but actually demand victory, and who are prepared to launch another salvo to undermine any ceasefire.
ETA for example from today:- Israel's military says it has launched strikes on military targets in western and central Iran, after warning it would retaliate for the first Iranian attack on Israel since April
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Russia would agree to #1 and #2 whoever was in charge. VVP, who is viewed as being too internationalist inside Russia, would possible agree to #3. It depends on the provenance of the multinational force. India, Sri Lanka or Algeria would be acceptable however vanity would compel the French to get involved and vanity would compel the English to do it because the French are. Russia would not accept that. Probably.
#4 and #5 are clearly maximalist demands that are put out there to be negotiated away for something else.
As somebody else mentioned, this is all for Trump's benefit as he is the only one who can impose a settlement. The strategy is appealing to his twin obsessions of deals, with this solyanka, and explosions, with the War of the Cities. I don't know who is architecting this scheme but I highly doubt it's Ukraine or that the welfare and security of the Ukrainian people are of any moment to them.
From what little I know, I would say Vickrum Digwa is probably a bigot -- but not necessarily a racist.
That's because I prefer to use "race" to categorize people, not by skin color, but by genetic distances. In this I follow Colin McEvedy's Penguin atlases. So, for example, in 8000 BC, according to his African History atlas, there were four main races in sub-Saharan Africa: Negroes, Nilo-Saharans, Pygmies, and San. All have better natural tans than I do.
In contrast, he would categorize both Europeans and most people from south Asia as Caucasians, the first light, the second dark.
Bigotry, on the other hand, can refer to different religions, as I suspect it did in Digwa's case.
(These heterodox views might get me in trouble on some American campuses, so I don't often speak about them.)
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Feels a bit weak to me not to demand Russia to withdraw and respect the Budapest Memorandum. It essentially acquiesces to Russia holding the ~one-fifth of Ukraine it currently occupies.
That's accepting that Russia is strong enough to force us to allow conquest of land in Europe. I think that's a dangerous precedent to set.
Watch for Trump getting Nato to back down on Russia very soon as we (i.e. he) needs to oil to get prices down.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Russia would agree to #1 and #2 whoever was in charge. VVP, who is viewed as being too internationalist inside Russia, would possible agree to #3. It depends on the provenance of the multinational force. India, Sri Lanka or Algeria would be acceptable however vanity would compel the French to get involved and vanity would compel the English to do it because the French are. Russia would not accept that. Probably.
#4 and #5 are clearly maximalist demands that are put out there to be negotiated away for something else.
As somebody else mentioned, this is all for Trump's benefit as he is the only one who can impose a settlement. The strategy is appealing to his twin obsessions of deals, with this solyanka, and explosions, with the War of the Cities. I don't know who is architecting this scheme but I highly doubt it's Ukraine or that the welfare and security of the Ukrainian people are of any moment to them.
Just give Ukraine more weapons and let them knock the crap out of the evil gits, blow them back to their own borders.
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.
Christ! It's raining again. This morning it was strong winds. 7 June - and there's been about 3 days of summer so far. 👿
We had a hailstorm this morning which laid partial waste to the council's nearby planter of pansies. Shame, it was rather pretty.
Blue sky and sunshine in Ayrshire
We have had a lot of rain overnight, the country roads were flooded this morning. Patchy cloud now and quite a surprisingly biting wind for the time of year. Fresh and very pleasant for the early walk.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Russia would agree to #1 and #2 whoever was in charge. VVP, who is viewed as being too internationalist inside Russia, would possible agree to #3. It depends on the provenance of the multinational force. India, Sri Lanka or Algeria would be acceptable however vanity would compel the French to get involved and vanity would compel the English to do it because the French are. Russia would not accept that. Probably.
#4 and #5 are clearly maximalist demands that are put out there to be negotiated away for something else.
As somebody else mentioned, this is all for Trump's benefit as he is the only one who can impose a settlement. The strategy is appealing to his twin obsessions of deals, with this solyanka, and explosions, with the War of the Cities. I don't know who is architecting this scheme but I highly doubt it's Ukraine or that the welfare and security of the Ukrainian people are of any moment to them.
Just give Ukraine more weapons and let them knock the crap out of the evil gits, blow them back to their own borders.
They are largely making their own these days and they are some of the best on the planet. Continuing this war is not in Russia's interest.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Russia would agree to #1 and #2 whoever was in charge. VVP, who is viewed as being too internationalist inside Russia, would possible agree to #3. It depends on the provenance of the multinational force. India, Sri Lanka or Algeria would be acceptable however vanity would compel the French to get involved and vanity would compel the English to do it because the French are. Russia would not accept that. Probably.
#4 and #5 are clearly maximalist demands that are put out there to be negotiated away for something else.
As somebody else mentioned, this is all for Trump's benefit as he is the only one who can impose a settlement. The strategy is appealing to his twin obsessions of deals, with this solyanka, and explosions, with the War of the Cities. I don't know who is architecting this scheme but I highly doubt it's Ukraine or that the welfare and security of the Ukrainian people are of any moment to them.
Just give Ukraine more weapons and let them knock the crap out of the evil gits, blow them back to their own borders.
They are largely making their own these days and they are some of the best on the planet. Continuing this war is not in Russia's interest.
It's certainly not in the interests of Russian people.
Christ! It's raining again. This morning it was strong winds. 7 June - and there's been about 3 days of summer so far. 👿
We had a hailstorm this morning which laid partial waste to the council's nearby planter of pansies. Shame, it was rather pretty.
Blue sky and sunshine in Ayrshire
We have had a lot of rain overnight, the country roads were flooded this morning. Patchy cloud now and quite a surprisingly biting wind for the time of year. Fresh and very pleasant for the early walk.
Raining here right now. I rather like that when I have to wander down to the local supermarket, means there's probably going to be fewer people in there.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for: - Immediate, complete ceasefire - Negotiations based on line of contact - Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force - Russian assets frozen until reparations - EU & NATO consent for security issues
Russia would agree to #1 and #2 whoever was in charge. VVP, who is viewed as being too internationalist inside Russia, would possible agree to #3. It depends on the provenance of the multinational force. India, Sri Lanka or Algeria would be acceptable however vanity would compel the French to get involved and vanity would compel the English to do it because the French are. Russia would not accept that. Probably.
#4 and #5 are clearly maximalist demands that are put out there to be negotiated away for something else.
As somebody else mentioned, this is all for Trump's benefit as he is the only one who can impose a settlement. The strategy is appealing to his twin obsessions of deals, with this solyanka, and explosions, with the War of the Cities. I don't know who is architecting this scheme but I highly doubt it's Ukraine or that the welfare and security of the Ukrainian people are of any moment to them.
Just give Ukraine more weapons and let them knock the crap out of the evil gits, blow them back to their own borders.
They are largely making their own these days and they are some of the best on the planet. Continuing this war is not in Russia's interest.
Just a pity that help has been half hearted till now from the biggest countries, if they had been fully supported from the beginning it would be over by now.
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?
What exactly is his culpability. He’s not denied it, or tried to downplay it. it was just a somewhat crass joke. Of course there’s a pattern with his tweets which is somewhat off putting.
He didn’t even aim the comment at her unlike the rather repulsive original tweet.
It certainly shows the need for some parties to get on top of their candidate vetting.
Culpability? Putting the remark out to the planet under his name. It is not a joke. Think about it WRT your daughter or partner. It is an assault.
Course it isn’t and if it was my wife or daughter if I had one I’d reserve the majority of my anger for the person who made the inappropriate comment in the first place.
Christ! It's raining again. This morning it was strong winds. 7 June - and there's been about 3 days of summer so far. 👿
We had a hailstorm this morning which laid partial waste to the council's nearby planter of pansies. Shame, it was rather pretty.
Blue sky and sunshine in Ayrshire
We have had a lot of rain overnight, the country roads were flooded this morning. Patchy cloud now and quite a surprisingly biting wind for the time of year. Fresh and very pleasant for the early walk.
Raining here right now. I rather like that when I have to wander down to the local supermarket, means there's probably going to be fewer people in there.
Surely the bells and swizzle stick section is rarely that crowded!?
Christ! It's raining again. This morning it was strong winds. 7 June - and there's been about 3 days of summer so far. 👿
We had a hailstorm this morning which laid partial waste to the council's nearby planter of pansies. Shame, it was rather pretty.
Blue sky and sunshine in Ayrshire
We have had a lot of rain overnight, the country roads were flooded this morning. Patchy cloud now and quite a surprisingly biting wind for the time of year. Fresh and very pleasant for the early walk.
Raining here right now. I rather like that when I have to wander down to the local supermarket, means there's probably going to be fewer people in there.
Surely the bells and swizzle stick section is rarely that crowded!?
I think you misunderstand what morris dancers use bells for. We only eat bell peppers, not actual bells.
Christ! It's raining again. This morning it was strong winds. 7 June - and there's been about 3 days of summer so far. 👿
We had a hailstorm this morning which laid partial waste to the council's nearby planter of pansies. Shame, it was rather pretty.
Blue sky and sunshine in Ayrshire
We have had a lot of rain overnight, the country roads were flooded this morning. Patchy cloud now and quite a surprisingly biting wind for the time of year. Fresh and very pleasant for the early walk.
Raining here right now. I rather like that when I have to wander down to the local supermarket, means there's probably going to be fewer people in there.
Surely the bells and swizzle stick section is rarely that crowded!?
I think you misunderstand what morris dancers use bells for. We only eat bell peppers, not actual bells.
And, again, part of the problem appears to be social media companies not bothering with any sort of due diligence.
Scam Ads pretending to be from the bbc and guardian - that’s been the case since at least 2014.
Problem is if it’s to a website the advert links to, what is served up will depend on where you are and it may well look completely innocent until the link is “turned on” after vetting
Brexit: A Very British Civil War – tonight, BBC2 9pm.
I suppose we can't expect the BBC to make Brexit: How the Entitled Class Lost Their Shit...
Entitled class? Farage, Johnson, Tice, Lowe, Gove, Rees Mogg. They won, they should suck it up.
Remainers were the entitled class - who got their toys taken away by thick oiks.
And they still wonder what fuels Reform....
Not sure where to start on this, given the abject failure of Brexit. The so-called "oiks" were systematically lied to by the far right. Not sure that is a question of entitlement, but it was certainly extremely dishonest. So what fuels Reform is continued lies, but I think Trump is showing us the future here, and the air in Farage's balloon seems to be going down. I think we can all see the dodgy donation and rabble rousing as what they are.
Sooner or later the rabble rousing gets called out, and that is why I think Makerfield may be the high water mark for RefUK.
And, again, part of the problem appears to be social media companies not bothering with any sort of due diligence.
Scam Ads pretending to be from the bbc and guardian - that’s been the case since at least 2014.
Problem is if it’s to a website the advert links to, what is served up will depend on where you are and it may well look completely innocent until the link is “turned on” after vetting
Yes, indeed, it’s something that has been going on for years. (That’s why I described it as something that gets ignored.)
There are, of course, challenges with how the social media companies police these systems, but they make big profits, they can try to solve those challenges. More to the point, they have to solve those challenges. Their business model should not be dependent on dumping societal harms on our communities.
I'm not on Instagram, TikTok, X or Bluesky and am increasingly avoiding LinkedIn too.
You'll feel much better for it.
It baffles me how people find the time for so much social media. Often there's TV of whatever type as well. There are many days I'm too busy to look at PB even.
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.
What is the point of Bond movies if a guy like Musk turns up and behaves exactly like a Bond villain and we don't even notice?
Comments
He didn’t even aim the comment at her unlike the rather repulsive original tweet.
It certainly shows the need for some parties to get on top of their candidate vetting.
That's because I prefer to use "race" to categorize people, not by skin color, but by genetic distances. In this I follow Colin McEvedy's Penguin atlases. So, for example, in 8000 BC, according to his African History atlas, there were four main races in sub-Saharan Africa: Negroes, Nilo-Saharans, Pygmies, and San. All have better natural tans than I do.
In contrast, he would categorize both Europeans and most people from south Asia as Caucasians, the first light, the second dark.
Bigotry, on the other hand, can refer to different religions, as I suspect it did in Digwa's case.
(These heterodox views might get me in trouble on some American campuses, so I don't often speak about them.)
The Reform and Greens combined still have fewer councillors than the Conservatives.
Trump is in a very frustrated mood. Hard to predict.
The point is that Letby was prevented from working on the ward very shortly after the ward was downgraded from level 2 to level 1, so it’s not true that the high death rate continued during the period when the unit was taking only level 1 babies. I believe all of the deaths Letby was charged with occurred whilst the unit was taking level 2 and above babies, i.e. those requiring intensive care.
IIRC the cluster of deaths had prompted NHS management to request external review of the service. The PDF I linked to was written by that service & concerns whether their investigation could or should have acted differently, given that Letby had been convicted of murdering many of the children in question.
I would guess that management was split between following procedure & trying to work out what to do about the accusations.
The review found significant problems with the unit. It was understaffed (although not significantly worse than other units) and consultants were very rarely seen on the unit, despite the extreme care needs of the patients. There was also no formalised system to follow up on deaths on the ward & look for problems - poor management basically. Again, this is all summarised in the PDF I linked.
Joint statement by Zelenskyy, Macron, Merz and Starmer calls for:
- Immediate, complete ceasefire
- Negotiations based on line of contact
- Robust, legally binding security guarantees, including multinational force
- Russian assets frozen until reparations
- EU & NATO consent for security issues
https://bsky.app/profile/jorgeliboreiro.bsky.social/post/3mnq2r3fo5s22
83.9% of England and Wales constituencies are held by Lab or Tory.
Opinion polls indicate that will change next time, but opinion polls have flattered to deceive for upstart parties in the past.
However, I don't see how you quantify what you've described as an election expense.
JOKING BASED ON AN ENTIRELY SPURIOUS INTERNET RUMOUR.
https://x.com/kylas610/status/2063633624843362624?s=61
The doctors repeatedly raised concerns about Letby and management, for a long time, point blank rejected those concerns.
Peace in our time
https://www.reddit.com/r/lucyletby/comments/153yn9w/timeline_june_2016july_2018/
There is no constitutional significance to the subset of constituencies in England & Wales, so that’s not the most useful figure. Labour and the Conservatives got the fewest seats between them at the 2024 general election since 1935, IIRC.
Regarding your second point, I didn't particularly warm to Frank Wright in that video. However, I also disagree with you, in that you appear to be arguing that the only thing wrong with the world is that we're viewing it via social media.
I think we can use history as our yardstick to look at what's going on today. History is a long story of civilisations coming and going, humans failing and falling forward. If our civilisation/country has stepped so profoundly away from the impetus to develop and thrive as a group, in as many ways as it has, I think we can call that extreme, and we can anticipate that something will probably happen to get us back on course.
Political bets for genuine financial hedging, sure, although I don't remember one since Brexit.
I would make an exception for irrational fun bets e.g. on football where I have no expertise and may bet against Sunderland for example if I'm going to go and watch them. But in that case ironically I'm not thinking about NEV at all.
Visitors arriving tomorrow so will be busy. Have a series of visitors from now until end of July so what with that, trustee duties, gardening in those moments when not raining and endless bloody hospital visits, I will have to add this to list of Stuff To Read When I Have Time.
(And the rest of us.)
Thousands march for French schoolgirl murdered after police failed to question suspect
Local man had been accused of rape in months before murder but series of delays meant police had failed to summon him for questioning
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/07/thousands-march-for-french-schoolgirl-murdered-after-police-failed-to-question-suspect
John Rentoul
@rentouljohn.bsky.social
Some great lines [in Wes Streeting interview].
The list of the govt’s achievements is like a shopping list: “The thing about shopping lists is you write them down because you can never remember them”
https://bsky.app/profile/rentouljohn.bsky.social/post/3mnpn2rd7z22o
https://wnpf.org/our-priorities/parks-we-support/park-webcams/
Links to webcams at US National Parks, starting with Mt. Rainier.
(Rainier is begnning to clear up after the latest snow fall. It should be reasonably clear until about noon, Pacific Daylight Time, tomorrow. I rather like that the Grand Canyon camera site claims you can see 152 miles. Many in the list will not be operative until later this summer, of course.)
https://www.yellowstone.co/allwebcams.htm
That's accepting that Russia is strong enough to force us to allow conquest of land in Europe. I think that's a dangerous precedent to set.
Kenyon's response is like Farage's talking points - it's bollocks.
His claim is along the lines 'these comments were all a long time ago, and I don't believe it now', but the whole lot are since 2020, and he wasn't 14 or 16, he was a man in his late 30s. And if he did not believe it now, he would apologise rather than obfuscate.
I don't think a word of it is credible - but from Starmer & Co we just get a tolerating silence.
On the MEN article there is the same thing - a couple of the vox pop's are around the Green Belt, and how the Govt will destroy it. But the Govt proposals are mainly around developing on predeveloped and now damaged parts of the Green Belt, and yet we hear no pushback on the term they used - the Grey Belt.
One amusing suggestion a friend has made is that they should get Vorderman to write their campaign letters, as she is a far better communicator than the entire Labour central operation, and seems already to have a decent editor.
"Calling us the Blob is insulting, says top civil servant
12 July 2023"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66174373
The EU position should include Russian to withdraw and respect the Budapest Memorandum, and Vladimir Putin to go on trial in the Hague.
However, some of it is also game playing. They know it is not acceptable to Russia, and therefore they want to appear to Trump to be being extremely reasonable, even generous. Personally, I think that's a dangerous game to play. But hey ho.
It's actually by far the mildest name that springs to mind for them, and I say that as a former quasi-member (very much on the fringes).
https://obr.uk/box/the-rise-of-public-sector-net-debt-over-the-past-25-years/
And they still wonder what fuels Reform....
ETA for example from today:-
Israel's military says it has launched strikes on military targets in western and central Iran, after warning it would retaliate for the first Iranian attack on Israel since April
US President Donald Trump earlier urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to retaliate for the Iranian strikes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clyengg72pgt
#4 and #5 are clearly maximalist demands that are put out there to be negotiated away for something else.
As somebody else mentioned, this is all for Trump's benefit as he is the only one who can impose a settlement. The strategy is appealing to his twin obsessions of deals, with this solyanka, and explosions, with the War of the Cities. I don't know who is architecting this scheme but I highly doubt it's Ukraine or that the welfare and security of the Ukrainian people are of any moment to them.
I'm not on Instagram, TikTok, X or Bluesky and am increasingly avoiding LinkedIn too.
You'll feel much better for it.
.... And the Finnish Karelians wave hello
"I call all the shots. Netanyahu doesn't call the shots." My telephone interview with Trump this afternoon
Trump told me this a couple of hours before Bibi struck Iran. He has turned himself into a prisoner of other people's decisions.
https://bsky.app/profile/edwardluce.bsky.social/post/3mnqk5hfrmk2u
And, again, part of the problem appears to be social media companies not bothering with any sort of due diligence.
F1: Hamilton leading Russell in the standings is quite something. And Alonso scored. Gosh.
With one, very high-profile, exception.
Problem is if it’s to a website the advert links to, what is served up will depend on where you are and it may well look completely innocent until the link is “turned on” after vetting
US officials draw up proposal to bypass Britain and make its own deal to take control of Diego Garcia
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/06/07/white-house-plan-chagos-islands/ (£££)
The Telegraph seems to be downplaying its own story; this is apparently one of several options.
Sooner or later the rabble rousing gets called out, and that is why I think Makerfield may be the high water mark for RefUK.
Red Bull are the only team who won't get tokens to upgrade in 2026 or 2027,
Mercedes and Ferrari get a token for 2026 and 2 tokens for 2027. Other engine manufacturers get more.
The calculation on engine power it seems is on ICE element only and Red Bull is 2% ahead of Merc and Ferrari.
Explains why Red Bull want 50:50 ICE to Electric changed to 60:40 for 2027.
Seems a stich up to again favour Mercedes though.
There are, of course, challenges with how the social media companies police these systems, but they make big profits, they can try to solve those challenges. More to the point, they have to solve those challenges. Their business model should not be dependent on dumping societal harms on our communities.