.png)
Friday, 7 May 2010
Gordon's in
That's the first (main) party leader safely back in his seat. Gordon managed a solid 29559 votes, with his nearest rival at 6550. Not really a surprise at all, since leaders tend to get safe seats, but it's one potential embarrassment dodged.
Despair sets in
C's getting despondent now. Alastair Campbell has conceded that Labour aren't going to be winning this one, and though he's viewed as a Blair lackey, there's grudging respect for him in Bryanston Towers.
I'm less sure where it's all going. Tory minority now seems more likely than Labour-LibDem coalition (my two heavily-hedged predictions the other day), but the results are still quite mixed - the Tories are taking some seats with impressive swings (often up to 10%), but they're also failing to take some others. The LibDems held onto Torbay in the southwest earlier, and a anti-Tory Unionist in Northern Ireland has just beaten the Tory Unionist candidate.
I'm less sure where it's all going. Tory minority now seems more likely than Labour-LibDem coalition (my two heavily-hedged predictions the other day), but the results are still quite mixed - the Tories are taking some seats with impressive swings (often up to 10%), but they're also failing to take some others. The LibDems held onto Torbay in the southwest earlier, and a anti-Tory Unionist in Northern Ireland has just beaten the Tory Unionist candidate.
Angus
Having complained the other day about having to vote SNP in my old Scottish seat (Angus) to keep the Tories out, we've just had the stats for the seat. I hadn't realised how close it was in 2005, and apparently it's another on the Tory hit-list for Scotland. Arse.
Trickling in
After a bit of a gap, the results are beginning to trickle in now. This time mostly from Northern Ireland. Which, I note with great pleasure, has just kicked Peter Robinson, leader of the DUP, into touch. Marvellous.
There seems to be a little confusion on the Beeb as to what's happened in Brighton. The Greens (grrrr) are hoping to gain their first ever seat there, and though the count apparently hasn't yet started, someone there has called it for them and the Beeb are showing it as a Green gain. Or perhaps they're not, they now seem to have reneged on this.
Meanwhile, ITV has called about twice as many seats as the Beeb. I don't know what that's all about.
There seems to be a little confusion on the Beeb as to what's happened in Brighton. The Greens (grrrr) are hoping to gain their first ever seat there, and though the count apparently hasn't yet started, someone there has called it for them and the Beeb are showing it as a Green gain. Or perhaps they're not, they now seem to have reneged on this.
Meanwhile, ITV has called about twice as many seats as the Beeb. I don't know what that's all about.
In passing ...
... (And if I can get grumpy for a moment) what I didn't really add about the Tories the other day was that the sole plank on which their success in this election rests is simply "change". Beyond that, they've got nothing. The comparison with New Labour's victory in 1997 is pretty stark. They also got in on the back of a huge popular swell for change, but they also had a stack of policies that they'd worked on for years. The closest that the Tories have this time is the so-called "Big Society", which appears to have singularly failed to capture anyone's imagination. Even "Back To Basics" was more plausible.
(The above bitterness was brought to you by my wrath spilling over having seen one too many Tory stooges on the box)
(The above bitterness was brought to you by my wrath spilling over having seen one too many Tory stooges on the box)
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Three down
And Labour are three seats up. But hardly surprising given that all three are in the stronghold of Sunderland. That said, the swing in the first two to the Tories was worrying large, although the final seat, which was the most Tory, had the smallest swing. So, more unextrapolatable results.
In other news, if the excitable media are anything to go by, there's a storm brewing in seats where people hadn't been able to vote in time. It seems harsh not to be able to vote, but it's also not clear why people weren't processed in time. The polls are open 15 hours, so it's hard (for me) not to think "didn't get your arse to the polling station in time, did you".
In other news, if the excitable media are anything to go by, there's a storm brewing in seats where people hadn't been able to vote in time. It seems harsh not to be able to vote, but it's also not clear why people weren't processed in time. The polls are open 15 hours, so it's hard (for me) not to think "didn't get your arse to the polling station in time, did you".
Seconds away ...
... And the Beeb (well, MORI) are estimating a hung parliament with a likely Conservative minority government on the basis of exit polling (C: 307; L: 255; LD: 59; O: 29). We're still more than an hour from the first result though, so plenty of time for endless (and groundless) extrapolation and speculation from the pundits.
P.S. Actually - possibly less than an hour. Apparently one seat is going for a record count of only 43 minutes.
P.S. Actually - possibly less than an hour. Apparently one seat is going for a record count of only 43 minutes.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Election Forecast
With only two days to go until voting begins, I thought I'd try to guess the result, declare my favoured result, and generally diss the various runners and riders. Then, after it's all over, I can see how far off the mark I was (or not, given that I'm seriously bet-hedging).
First: the result. The polls are still too variable to very confident, but some sort of minority/coalition government seems most likely to me. Stating the bleeding obvious, I reckon that the Tories will have the largest share of the popular vote, and potentially the most seats in the House, but not enough of the latter to form a majority government. Although the polls (as of this past weekend) point to the LimDems getting a greater share of the popular vote than Labour, I expect Labour to come second in terms of total number of parliamentary seats (to again state the fairly obvious). In fact, I still expect the polls to be wrong, and that the LibDems will come in a strong third place (more than enough for Clegg keep hold of the reins).
Anyway, given this "analysis", Friday morning could theoretically present four possibilities, but I reckon only two of these are halfway likely outcomes. Basically, ...
Second: what I want. My voting record to date has been driven primarily by the need to oppose the Tories wherever possible (more on that in a minute). So, of the two results I've "forecast", I would definitely favour a Lib-Lab coalition. That said, a non-constructive part of me would definitely enjoy sniping at a Tory minority government forced to go begging to the Unionist factions of Northern Ireland (of whom, yes, there are parliamentary parties that I like even less than the Tories).
While I could go off on some progressive fantasy of either a Labour or LibDem triumph, I don't know that I'd actually favour these at this time. I definitely feel that Labour need to atone for their errors, and I'm not (quite) convinced that the LibDems are ready for government. On the latter point (and apologies to Mike), I fear that the wheels of an inexperienced LibDem government might quickly fall off and consign them to decades of marginal existence. Not something that I want to happen to the progressives forces that they (in large, but not exclusive, part) represent.
Third: the parties. Although I had thought that I wouldn't be paying a huge amount of attention this time around, I have (in part because of C) been enjoying the Beeb's coverage of the election, particularly their Campaign Show, and did I watch all three of the debates (though tended to websurf as they wore on). So I have been able to take stock on the parties to some degree, and won't simply be voting instinctively. That's my cover story at any rate.
While I voted Labour last time, and will be voting for them again this time (I'm happy to do this since my sitting MP quit the Cabinet over the Iraq War), I do still feel that they need to be held to account for some of their actions this parliament. I don't buy the line that the UK's current economic difficulties can be laid solely at the door of a global financial crisis. Some of our problems stem from foolish assumptions about corporate behaviour and regulation, and a hopelessly panglossian faith in never-ending economic growth. Having said that, I seriously doubt that the Tories would have done things much differently from the current Labour government. Sure, we might not have wound up saddled with as much debt driven by public spending, but we might well have seen even looser regulation and even greater misplaced faith in capitalism. Also, and this is something where I feel ideology has completely trumped verification, though Labour's policies have aimed to engineer a more equitable society with a narrower wealth gap, they've actually achieved the reverse. This hasn't happened overnight, and has been visible in the statistics for some time - perhaps this is something that a "correction" in their polling might help them reflect upon.
As already noted above, for me the Tories serve largely as an impetus to vote. Against them. Growing up with Thatcher cast a long (without end so far) shadow over my opinion of them. But by the time that the election campaign started, Cameron's makeover of the party had definitely smoothed off some of the cut-glass edges. While I was still fired up to vote against them, I had convinced myself that the tide was high for the Tories, and their seeming lack of fatally objectionable soundbites made them a shoe-in for the election. They'd even pretty successfully weathered class-war assertions about Cameron's toff roots. But as the campaign has rolled on it's become increasingly obvious that any change that appears in the party is pretty skin deep. Furthermore, as well as running on empty policy-wise, they just cannot stop themselves, even in an election year, from scoring own-goals like their proposed inheritance tax cut (even if it's not as inflammatory as opponents make out). In a way, it's strangely reassuring that the Tories are incapable of deep-down change, and that they'll always come back to protecting certain core interests. It's also darkly funny to hear the Tories championing the so-called "Big Society" when those with a memory stretching back to the 1980s are unlikely to forget that "there is no such thing as society". This seems no more than a cynical, and cheapskate, attempt to palm off services to unaccountable charities and churches eager to expand their empires. Somewhat like the Republicans in the US (although nowhere near as poisonously crazy), the Tories still seem split between economic conservatism and a social conservatism that make uneasy bedfellows. This story over the weekend, in particular, neatly summarised this aspect for me. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
About the only thing everyone seems able to agree on in this election is that the LibDems have been something of an unexpected revelation. Going into the race, they seemed destined for their traditional third place finish, but Clegg's performance in the first debate seems to have kicked them into high gear. Personally, I thought he finished only slightly better off than the other two leaders, but The Press Has Spoken, and who am I to disagree? For me, their big selling point this time around was having been less bullish about the economy prior to its unravelling (or, at least, having one prominent member of the party being less bullish). That put them in a better place than the other two parties for me, but I can't say that I've heard much more beyond this that's enhanced my faith in them. True, I'm with them on their progressive stuff, but perhaps because they haven't had to change much during the campaign I've not been especially inspired. I am keen that something happens to shake up the moribund electoral system, and this election may be the one that gives them enough of an edge to achieve this, but none of their other policies jumped out and grabbed me. Scrapping Trident, sure, but I didn't feel that Clegg's "fairness" was appreciably superior to Brown's "fairness". Although Clegg does have the advantage of not have let the wealth gap grow. I guess, overall, I want the LibDems to do well, but, treacherously, I don't want them to inadvertently give the Tories an "in". So much for my ideals.
Of the smaller parties, only the various nationalist enclaves and the Greens have made much of a dent on me. The nationalists (at least so far as one can judge from their infrequent TV appearances) seem focussed on getting some sort of hung parliament so that they can hold a gun to the head of the resulting minority government. Hardly the most constructive of viewpoints, but I'm not exactly "philosophically aligned" with their divide-and-rule plans for the UK. Of course, when I lived in Scotland I actually had to vote SNP in my local seat to keep it Tory-free, but I'm pleased to be out of that.
The Greens, as ever, pose something of a dilemma for me. On the one hand, I am "philosophically aligned" with their (ostensible) core beliefs. For straightforward ecological reasons, I'm good with environmental protection and sustainability. But it's perhaps because of this theoretical similarity that I remain otherwise quite hostile towards the Greens. Much like other environmental advocacy groups, they are happy to use science when it suits them (e.g. climate change), but dispense with it in favour of green theology whenever it doesn't (e.g. nuclear energy). That said, they've gotten smart enough to realise that dismissals of nuclear energy have to be phrased in economic terms rather than faux-environmental ones. Which makes their 1970s socialism on economic matters seem all the more strange. I don't think that socialised economies are necessarily any better than properly regulated market economies when it comes to environmentalism, but the Greens appear to still have this as an article of faith. All of which makes them largely unelectable. Which, given the importance of environmental protection, makes them something of an impediment rather than a help. So long as the general public associates environmentalism with old school economics and a fuzzy love for trees, the Greens strike me as dangerous. As Garrett Hardin once said of pesticide-zealots, "[w]ith friends like these the environment needs no enemies".
P.S. Further to the above, I've just watched a rather barn-storming speech by Brown to a gathering of party workers in Manchester. While he got in some nice pot-shots at the expense of the Tories, the highlight was a rather extended period in which he listed, at some length, a list of Labour's achievements since 1997. What was interesting to me was how many of these I'd forgotten about, and how many I take for granted now. Maybe there's life in the old dog yet?
First: the result. The polls are still too variable to very confident, but some sort of minority/coalition government seems most likely to me. Stating the bleeding obvious, I reckon that the Tories will have the largest share of the popular vote, and potentially the most seats in the House, but not enough of the latter to form a majority government. Although the polls (as of this past weekend) point to the LimDems getting a greater share of the popular vote than Labour, I expect Labour to come second in terms of total number of parliamentary seats (to again state the fairly obvious). In fact, I still expect the polls to be wrong, and that the LibDems will come in a strong third place (more than enough for Clegg keep hold of the reins).
Anyway, given this "analysis", Friday morning could theoretically present four possibilities, but I reckon only two of these are halfway likely outcomes. Basically, ...
- Tories in minority government
-
Tories in coalition government -
Labour in minority government - Labour in coalition government
Second: what I want. My voting record to date has been driven primarily by the need to oppose the Tories wherever possible (more on that in a minute). So, of the two results I've "forecast", I would definitely favour a Lib-Lab coalition. That said, a non-constructive part of me would definitely enjoy sniping at a Tory minority government forced to go begging to the Unionist factions of Northern Ireland (of whom, yes, there are parliamentary parties that I like even less than the Tories).
While I could go off on some progressive fantasy of either a Labour or LibDem triumph, I don't know that I'd actually favour these at this time. I definitely feel that Labour need to atone for their errors, and I'm not (quite) convinced that the LibDems are ready for government. On the latter point (and apologies to Mike), I fear that the wheels of an inexperienced LibDem government might quickly fall off and consign them to decades of marginal existence. Not something that I want to happen to the progressives forces that they (in large, but not exclusive, part) represent.
Third: the parties. Although I had thought that I wouldn't be paying a huge amount of attention this time around, I have (in part because of C) been enjoying the Beeb's coverage of the election, particularly their Campaign Show, and did I watch all three of the debates (though tended to websurf as they wore on). So I have been able to take stock on the parties to some degree, and won't simply be voting instinctively. That's my cover story at any rate.
While I voted Labour last time, and will be voting for them again this time (I'm happy to do this since my sitting MP quit the Cabinet over the Iraq War), I do still feel that they need to be held to account for some of their actions this parliament. I don't buy the line that the UK's current economic difficulties can be laid solely at the door of a global financial crisis. Some of our problems stem from foolish assumptions about corporate behaviour and regulation, and a hopelessly panglossian faith in never-ending economic growth. Having said that, I seriously doubt that the Tories would have done things much differently from the current Labour government. Sure, we might not have wound up saddled with as much debt driven by public spending, but we might well have seen even looser regulation and even greater misplaced faith in capitalism. Also, and this is something where I feel ideology has completely trumped verification, though Labour's policies have aimed to engineer a more equitable society with a narrower wealth gap, they've actually achieved the reverse. This hasn't happened overnight, and has been visible in the statistics for some time - perhaps this is something that a "correction" in their polling might help them reflect upon.
As already noted above, for me the Tories serve largely as an impetus to vote. Against them. Growing up with Thatcher cast a long (without end so far) shadow over my opinion of them. But by the time that the election campaign started, Cameron's makeover of the party had definitely smoothed off some of the cut-glass edges. While I was still fired up to vote against them, I had convinced myself that the tide was high for the Tories, and their seeming lack of fatally objectionable soundbites made them a shoe-in for the election. They'd even pretty successfully weathered class-war assertions about Cameron's toff roots. But as the campaign has rolled on it's become increasingly obvious that any change that appears in the party is pretty skin deep. Furthermore, as well as running on empty policy-wise, they just cannot stop themselves, even in an election year, from scoring own-goals like their proposed inheritance tax cut (even if it's not as inflammatory as opponents make out). In a way, it's strangely reassuring that the Tories are incapable of deep-down change, and that they'll always come back to protecting certain core interests. It's also darkly funny to hear the Tories championing the so-called "Big Society" when those with a memory stretching back to the 1980s are unlikely to forget that "there is no such thing as society". This seems no more than a cynical, and cheapskate, attempt to palm off services to unaccountable charities and churches eager to expand their empires. Somewhat like the Republicans in the US (although nowhere near as poisonously crazy), the Tories still seem split between economic conservatism and a social conservatism that make uneasy bedfellows. This story over the weekend, in particular, neatly summarised this aspect for me. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
About the only thing everyone seems able to agree on in this election is that the LibDems have been something of an unexpected revelation. Going into the race, they seemed destined for their traditional third place finish, but Clegg's performance in the first debate seems to have kicked them into high gear. Personally, I thought he finished only slightly better off than the other two leaders, but The Press Has Spoken, and who am I to disagree? For me, their big selling point this time around was having been less bullish about the economy prior to its unravelling (or, at least, having one prominent member of the party being less bullish). That put them in a better place than the other two parties for me, but I can't say that I've heard much more beyond this that's enhanced my faith in them. True, I'm with them on their progressive stuff, but perhaps because they haven't had to change much during the campaign I've not been especially inspired. I am keen that something happens to shake up the moribund electoral system, and this election may be the one that gives them enough of an edge to achieve this, but none of their other policies jumped out and grabbed me. Scrapping Trident, sure, but I didn't feel that Clegg's "fairness" was appreciably superior to Brown's "fairness". Although Clegg does have the advantage of not have let the wealth gap grow. I guess, overall, I want the LibDems to do well, but, treacherously, I don't want them to inadvertently give the Tories an "in". So much for my ideals.
Of the smaller parties, only the various nationalist enclaves and the Greens have made much of a dent on me. The nationalists (at least so far as one can judge from their infrequent TV appearances) seem focussed on getting some sort of hung parliament so that they can hold a gun to the head of the resulting minority government. Hardly the most constructive of viewpoints, but I'm not exactly "philosophically aligned" with their divide-and-rule plans for the UK. Of course, when I lived in Scotland I actually had to vote SNP in my local seat to keep it Tory-free, but I'm pleased to be out of that.
The Greens, as ever, pose something of a dilemma for me. On the one hand, I am "philosophically aligned" with their (ostensible) core beliefs. For straightforward ecological reasons, I'm good with environmental protection and sustainability. But it's perhaps because of this theoretical similarity that I remain otherwise quite hostile towards the Greens. Much like other environmental advocacy groups, they are happy to use science when it suits them (e.g. climate change), but dispense with it in favour of green theology whenever it doesn't (e.g. nuclear energy). That said, they've gotten smart enough to realise that dismissals of nuclear energy have to be phrased in economic terms rather than faux-environmental ones. Which makes their 1970s socialism on economic matters seem all the more strange. I don't think that socialised economies are necessarily any better than properly regulated market economies when it comes to environmentalism, but the Greens appear to still have this as an article of faith. All of which makes them largely unelectable. Which, given the importance of environmental protection, makes them something of an impediment rather than a help. So long as the general public associates environmentalism with old school economics and a fuzzy love for trees, the Greens strike me as dangerous. As Garrett Hardin once said of pesticide-zealots, "[w]ith friends like these the environment needs no enemies".
P.S. Further to the above, I've just watched a rather barn-storming speech by Brown to a gathering of party workers in Manchester. While he got in some nice pot-shots at the expense of the Tories, the highlight was a rather extended period in which he listed, at some length, a list of Labour's achievements since 1997. What was interesting to me was how many of these I'd forgotten about, and how many I take for granted now. Maybe there's life in the old dog yet?
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Fisheyed sunset
Another stab at a subject I've tackled many times before, but this time with fixed exposure, high frequency (5 seconds) and a fisheye lens ...
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Friday, 30 April 2010
History repeats itself
We got our third duck family earlier this week, and it's already down to 10 chicks. The original two families are now even more significantly down, with just a handful of (admittedly larger) chicks between them now. Less evidence of people feeding them this week, but I'm probably just not paying close enough attention. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if anyone makes it out alive this year. It's not even May, but already a wearisomely familiar picture of Nature's waste seems to have all but played out.
Still, on the plus side, the seagulls have been getting busy this week. Noisily. Just outside my office window. So hopefully there'll be at least some signs of more enlightened, K-selected behaviour to offset the r-folly of the ducks.
Still, on the plus side, the seagulls have been getting busy this week. Noisily. Just outside my office window. So hopefully there'll be at least some signs of more enlightened, K-selected behaviour to offset the r-folly of the ducks.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Dr. M
Up to London this weekend on a long-overdue trip to see Dr. M. Because I'm not particularly well-organised (to say the least), our previous get-together is lost back in the mists of early 2009.
In fact, it's been so long that since this last visit, Dr. M has not only purchased an old terraced house in southwest London, but has almost completely renovated it. Before visiting, I'd interpreted his descriptions as pointing to it requiring something of a spruce up, but in fact it's been on the receiving end of some serious work. To the extent of interior walls being demolished and rebuilt; a total rewiring; the plumbing in of the house's first central heating system; and the removal of all traces of the previous owner's preferred decoration style (vintage 1960s, judging from the photographs). Anyway, an impressive work-over has occurred, though a little more tidying up will keep Dr. M busy a bit longer.
Post-house-appraisal, we headed off to London Bridge to take in a great market there, and to grab some beers in sight of St. Pauls. After a change or two of bars, and the departure of C on cat-feeding detail, we headed back out west for an evening of drunken philosophising, breeze-shooting and curry consumption. Most satisfying, though now largely forgotten.
Sunday took us out to Woking for some garden shopping. One large credit card transaction later, and Dr. M was all set to be self-sufficient in the produce-growing department. Well, in a few years once the veritable arboretum purchased comes of fruit-bearing age. I'm looking forwards to seeing how that all pans out next time I'm up. Which, hopefully, won't be after so long an interruption.
There are some more photographs here.
In fact, it's been so long that since this last visit, Dr. M has not only purchased an old terraced house in southwest London, but has almost completely renovated it. Before visiting, I'd interpreted his descriptions as pointing to it requiring something of a spruce up, but in fact it's been on the receiving end of some serious work. To the extent of interior walls being demolished and rebuilt; a total rewiring; the plumbing in of the house's first central heating system; and the removal of all traces of the previous owner's preferred decoration style (vintage 1960s, judging from the photographs). Anyway, an impressive work-over has occurred, though a little more tidying up will keep Dr. M busy a bit longer.
Post-house-appraisal, we headed off to London Bridge to take in a great market there, and to grab some beers in sight of St. Pauls. After a change or two of bars, and the departure of C on cat-feeding detail, we headed back out west for an evening of drunken philosophising, breeze-shooting and curry consumption. Most satisfying, though now largely forgotten.
Sunday took us out to Woking for some garden shopping. One large credit card transaction later, and Dr. M was all set to be self-sufficient in the produce-growing department. Well, in a few years once the veritable arboretum purchased comes of fruit-bearing age. I'm looking forwards to seeing how that all pans out next time I'm up. Which, hopefully, won't be after so long an interruption.
There are some more photographs here.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Malthus takes a bite
It's difficult to be sure about the rate at which it's happening, since I'm not making a concerted effort to head-count them, but the duckling count is definitely down since the start of this week. Then, both mothers had around 15 chicks each, but today the broods are both down to less than 10 each, although it isn't terribly easy to count them quickly.
I've also not been keeping track of violations of the food-embargo. The declining duckling number hints at no further breeches, and I certainly can't see anything down there just now, but duck-on-duckling murder is (apparently) at least as common a Malthusian scythe as starvation.
Actually, that probably makes the quad sound at little to much like some sort of Roman Amphitheatre, with gladiator-style duckling action in the arena. So far, I've yet to see anything bad happen at all. From my perspective, ducklings just disappear, but I'm assured that there are nefarious goings-on down below.
I've also not been keeping track of violations of the food-embargo. The declining duckling number hints at no further breeches, and I certainly can't see anything down there just now, but duck-on-duckling murder is (apparently) at least as common a Malthusian scythe as starvation.
Actually, that probably makes the quad sound at little to much like some sort of Roman Amphitheatre, with gladiator-style duckling action in the arena. So far, I've yet to see anything bad happen at all. From my perspective, ducklings just disappear, but I'm assured that there are nefarious goings-on down below.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Oops, wine tasting
Forgot to report a wine tasting evening at which we were the hosts. Duh.
Given the close proximity to the much-awaited (by at least one of us; clue: not me) 2010 World Cup, we chose our wines along football-relevant lines. Originally, we'd hoped to get wines from each of the countries in England's qualifying group, but Algeria and Slovenia turned out not to be well-represented (well, represented) in our local off-licence. So we wound up having a wine each from parts of Group C (England and United States) and two wines apiece from the hosts (South Africa) and the current holders (Italy). The English wine was one we acquired last year on our holiday in Burwash (and surprisingly good - to the extent that I judged that it must be the non-English white and voted appropriately ... and incorrectly). The choice of the theme also gave C licence to roll out the assorted World Cup tat that we've amassed over the years, including a England-shirted gnome we put on the front steps to greet our guests.
While the evening went very well, true to form the scores were uniformly low. Out of a possible 24 points (6 wines times 4 properties: grape, country, year, alcohol content) the highest score achieved was a meagre 9 (I pulled down a shockingly poor 5). A result of this low scoring was that we then had to have a three-way tie-break to tease apart the weak field and determine our winner. Next time, I reckon that some form of multiple choice should be used so that we have at least some idea what vintages and potencies are in the mix, with the hope that our scores are somewhat more respectable.
Anyway, the upshot of the contest was the wresting of the Golden Arse from June (shown here, pre-match) by her daughter Rachel ...
As usual, there's a full set of photographs here.
Given the close proximity to the much-awaited (by at least one of us; clue: not me) 2010 World Cup, we chose our wines along football-relevant lines. Originally, we'd hoped to get wines from each of the countries in England's qualifying group, but Algeria and Slovenia turned out not to be well-represented (well, represented) in our local off-licence. So we wound up having a wine each from parts of Group C (England and United States) and two wines apiece from the hosts (South Africa) and the current holders (Italy). The English wine was one we acquired last year on our holiday in Burwash (and surprisingly good - to the extent that I judged that it must be the non-English white and voted appropriately ... and incorrectly). The choice of the theme also gave C licence to roll out the assorted World Cup tat that we've amassed over the years, including a England-shirted gnome we put on the front steps to greet our guests.
While the evening went very well, true to form the scores were uniformly low. Out of a possible 24 points (6 wines times 4 properties: grape, country, year, alcohol content) the highest score achieved was a meagre 9 (I pulled down a shockingly poor 5). A result of this low scoring was that we then had to have a three-way tie-break to tease apart the weak field and determine our winner. Next time, I reckon that some form of multiple choice should be used so that we have at least some idea what vintages and potencies are in the mix, with the hope that our scores are somewhat more respectable.
Anyway, the upshot of the contest was the wresting of the Golden Arse from June (shown here, pre-match) by her daughter Rachel ...
As usual, there's a full set of photographs here.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Contrails galore
With aircraft restrictions re-evaluated, it's contrails galore above Soton at the moment. It's been quite interesting to have the sky free of them for the better part of a week, but I say that as someone who's not flying next until mid-May. Anyway, perhaps my officemate, stranded since last week in the US, will make it back soon?
Needless to say, the Tories (and other reprobates) have been quick to turn what appears (at worst) over-cautious regulation into a great big political football. What's worse is that their shrill spokesperson is using the event as an opportunity to go off on one about "over-regulation". Given how overzealous some airlines have been with thousands of misplaced customers on their books, I can just imagine how deregulation will improve things. Either way, it's helpful to know that leopards really don't change their spots.
Needless to say, the Tories (and other reprobates) have been quick to turn what appears (at worst) over-cautious regulation into a great big political football. What's worse is that their shrill spokesperson is using the event as an opportunity to go off on one about "over-regulation". Given how overzealous some airlines have been with thousands of misplaced customers on their books, I can just imagine how deregulation will improve things. Either way, it's helpful to know that leopards really don't change their spots.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Oooh, a jet!
Contrails ahoy! That's the first one in days - a proper high-flying, condensation trail-producing, volcanic ash-risking aeroplane. Heading south-west too.
Judging from the ongoing commentary on all things volcanic, it's becoming another opportunity to bash the UK Met. Office and, in particular, climate models. Some argue that the (positive) data from a handful of test flights is transparently more credible than the (negative) synoptic output from regularly data-assimilated models that have been carefully developed over years. Even the normally money-grubbing RyanAir has seen through that cheap shot and noted that, in a dynamic situation, a clear air corridor today is useless for planning flights in even a few days time. Ho-hum.
Judging from the ongoing commentary on all things volcanic, it's becoming another opportunity to bash the UK Met. Office and, in particular, climate models. Some argue that the (positive) data from a handful of test flights is transparently more credible than the (negative) synoptic output from regularly data-assimilated models that have been carefully developed over years. Even the normally money-grubbing RyanAir has seen through that cheap shot and noted that, in a dynamic situation, a clear air corridor today is useless for planning flights in even a few days time. Ho-hum.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Two tribes
Presumably at some point during the weekend, a second brood of ducklings has hatched, so we now have two collections of adorable chicks competing for the negligible resources of the quad. Or not so negligible as it happens, since someone is feeding them in direct contravention of the human-Anatidae rules of engagement. Anyway, for now all looks well in the quad, but with ~30 ducklings in there all aiming at adult size, it's going to get ugly before long.
In passing, while there's no sign of any chicks yet, our roosting seagulls appear to have returned. And seem to be spending a lot of time here judging from the accumulation of guano.
In passing, while there's no sign of any chicks yet, our roosting seagulls appear to have returned. And seem to be spending a lot of time here judging from the accumulation of guano.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Up
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Quad fodder
As promised, some photographs of this year's first quad brood. Not that it's possible to tell, but the upper image shows part of our new, improved quad pond.
In unrelated photography news, the sun is setting here right now, but doesn't look any redder this evening despite Iceland's current contribution to air pollution.
In unrelated photography news, the sun is setting here right now, but doesn't look any redder this evening despite Iceland's current contribution to air pollution.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Let the Malthusian dynamics begin
About a week earlier than in last April, our first batch of ducklings has appeared in the quad. I didn't spot them myself, but they were clocked from another office with a great view down into one of the bushes that they nest in. Given that they were all hiding under their mother, I wasn't able to do a headcount, but my corridormate thinks that there are already more than 10 chicks. That fits with last year's first batch which came in at 14. Anyway, I'll see about getting some pictures for Strange News, but I'm obviously prohibited from circulating them more widely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
