It's too darn hot

Jun. 20th, 2017 07:55 pm
hilarita: trefoil carving (Default)
[personal profile] hilarita
Especially in my house (1970s greenhouse) and my office (2013 'green' building).

I'm particularly cross about the office. It's lovely in some ways. It's very energy efficient. It has only passive cooling (except in the server room), which is just about OK when the temperature only goes up to 25 degrees. It then gets progressively less efficient, until at around 28 degrees it stops doing anything much at all. There's no dehumidifier. This means that my lungs crap out, and I start not being able to breathe very well, and my heart rate goes up even when I'm sitting still.
We have fans in the office, which keeps the temperature down to 'only' a couple of degrees above the outside temperature. It does fuck all about the humidity. Mysteriously, I can't really work when it's that hot - I have basically constant headaches, and have to mainline cool liquids (not too much water - hyponatraemia is no fun). This would be fine if there was such a thing as 'so hot they send you all home'. I *can* work from home; however, it's not much better there. It's only better at all because I can wear far fewer clothes than is acceptable even in my office.
I wouldn't mind taking a day off work from time to time. However, there are usually (well, OK, since I started working in this building) at least 5 days at around 30 degrees, plus another couple of weeks at 25+. That's too much time to take off work. I love the environment, and generally approve of not fucking it over egregiously, for the sake of all the people in the world who will be deeply affected by climate change. But trying to kill me off for 3 weeks a year (a total that's only likely to increase) isn't great either.
I'd like to have some air con, or at least some dehumidifiers. I don't want it American Cold (i.e. so bloody cold you need a jumper on) - I just want it kept to around 25-26 degrees, so I can at least not risk having a stroke.

West wing, ep 1, first commandment

Jun. 19th, 2017 05:23 pm
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
I've bashed my head on this before but not got a specific answer. Now I read through it in some more detail.


In West Wing episode 1, Josh insults some evangelical christian leaders. In a meeting trying to resolve this, the following happens.

* One of them proposes a radio address (presumably by the president) on a topic important to them, including public morals, school prayer or pornography. Apparently meaning "people in school should not have access to condoms", "people in school should be forced to perform christian prayer" and "we don't quite know what we want you to do but we're very upset about pornography".

* There is a muddle of people speaking at once, and he cuts in again, saying, "I'd like to discuss why we hear so much talk about the First Amendment coming out of this building, but no talk at all about the First Commandment."

* He says, "The First Commandment says 'Honor thy Father'."

* Toby breaks in, and says that's wrong, that's the third commandment. He is very long-suffering.

* He says, what is the first then?

* The president enters the room and quotes: "I am the Lord your God. Thou shalt worship no other God before me."


I'm fairly sure the intended impression is, talk show guy spoke without thinking and screwed up something basic, Toby and the president correct him.

But firstly, the first commandment seems SO basic, it's hard to see how he could get it wrong. Whether or not he's a good Christian overall, quoting the commandments, especially the first one, seems like the sort of thing he'd do all the time.

Secondly, when I first heard it, I assumed this was "honor your father and mother", but now I wonder if it's supposed to be honoring *God* thy father. Although that doesn't quite fit any of the specific sentences either.

I'm not sure if the commandment he was quoting was supposed to be directly related to the previous discussion or not. Either of the possibilities doesn't seem directly relevant to the school stuff, but it's possible it is in a way that's only familiar if you know the usual arguments people make.

Several people point out that all the people involved have *different* traditional commandment numbering. Toby is Jewish. The christian leaders are protestant. And the president is catholic. I assume in America the protestant version is widely known and often considered canonical? I spent some time on wikipedia checking the different traditions for how to break up the commandments into ten.

But that doesn't seem to fit much better. The president could be quoting the protestant version (or possibly a slightly abbreviated catholic version?)

There's no way to make "honor thy father and mother" into 1 or 3, it's 5 for both protestants and jews (and 4 for catholics).

It could instead be "have no other god" or "don't take God's name in vain" but that doesn't quite fit, either the numbers or the quote.

My best guess is that someone wrote an exchange that worked, probably based on the traditional protestant numbering[1]. And then it got edited for various reasons, and ended up in a version which sounded good but didn't actually make sense.

The best alternate explanation is (a) Christian leader guy genuinely didn't know what the first commandment was (or forgot in the heat of the moment) (b) Toby was trolling by deliberately making something up, knowing no-one could call him on it as he had a different numbering anyway (c) the president (an intellectual catholic) knew the confusion of the numbering, but quoted a first commandment that would be expected to protestants and wasn't exactly wrong by his own tradition.

But to me that seems too complicated, if all that was supposed to be there, there'd be more indication. The mistake would have been one where it's more clear how he came to make a mistake. Toby would have sounded different if he was blowing smoke than if he was correcting people. There'd be some acknowledgement that SOMEONE would have known the first commandment, that this isn't exactly an obscure piece of theological trivia the president researched.

[1] West Wing does much better at research than most shows, but they seem to research a particular topic, it still seems like minor things not the main theme of an episode get overlooked sometimes.

sparrowsion: (mini-sparrow)
[personal profile] sparrowsion
These rules describe a game which has been given much thought but not play tested, distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Rules of Tesseri )

More tv/books

Jun. 19th, 2017 12:00 pm
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
Community. Rewatched first two series. Got bored in series three. I think there was still a lot of good things after that, but I wasn't as excited by each episode.

Rewatching s1 of west wing. Still very good. See twitter for running commentary. It's strange that WW made so many things famous you can't look up if they're true or not, you just find they were in the WW.

When I was being excited by Natural History of Dragons #3, I forgot to say, they investigate translating an ancient syllabary language. made me think of rochvelleth :)

Watched Doctor Who "Veritas". Some things are tedious: that's not how computers work, and that's not how random numbers work. It's almost the opposite. But overall I enjoyed it quite a lot.

Read the latest wild cards. Weird that it just happens to be set in Taraz (Talas) in Kazakhstan when ghoti et al are visiting that country. Although it unfortunately doesn't include much actually specific to Kazakhstan.

There's so many things that are really interesting about the wild card books. Partly that lots of famous authors show up writing a really different style of thing to what they usually write, often more straightforwardly engaging. Partly that main characters in one story thread show up as minor characters in other story thread, and you get a good triangulation on them, how they think of themselves vs how different people see them -- often with no Word-of-God on which is more accurate.
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack

OK, I'm going to assume everyone who wanted to think about the original problem unspoiled has probably done so, and assume comments have rot26 spoilers from here on.

Read more... )
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
OK, so before the bizarre misunderstandings in my previous post, I had been going to repost question which I thought was an interesting logic puzzle in its own right.

You have five bags of holding. One contains a fabulous treasure. Two contain liches who can't escape until you open the bag. Two contain nothing.

You have a spell which tells you something about the result of a course of action you propose. (This description is slightly altered from the functionality of the original spell to make the puzzle work, feel free to ask for clarification as needed.)

"Weal" for good result (eg. treasure, no liches)
"Woe" for bad result (eg. 1+ lich, no treasure)
"Weal and Woe" for a good and bad result (eg. treasure and also lich)
"Nothing" for a result of no particular good or bad (eg. open no bags or only open empty bags)


What's the minimum number of castings of the spell needed? (I think 3 is easy and 1 is impossible, so basically, can you do 2?)


The course of action has to be 30 minutes or less.

We don't have specifics on how you define the course of action, ask if it needs to be more explicit.

Assume you can include other results in the plan if they help, eg. "if this bad contains nothing, I stab myself in the leg", without necessarily needing to follow through. (This is slightly more generous than the original spell.)

Assume you don't include the castings of further divination spells within the scope of the course of action considered by casting the first spell.

Follow-ups (may be unnecessary depending on the best solution to the original)

If you only have one casting, what's the greatest chance you can give yourself of finding the treasure whilst finding no liches.

The original restrictions of the spell say that if you cast it four times in a day (ignored for the basic puzzle), the second, third and fourth times have a 25%, 50% and 75% chance of giving a random answer. What's the highest chance you can give yourself of finding the treasure and no liches in up to four castings with those failure chances.

Previously we assumed you couldn't create a paradox. If you *can*, and causing a paradox causes the spell to fail to give an answer in a way distinct from "nothing", can you reduce the number of castings?

If you *can* ask about a course of action including further divination spells, does that help?

Does the answer generalise to a larger number of bags (assuming 1 treasure, N liches and N nothing)

ETA: Fix formatting.

Natural History of Dragons #3

Jun. 12th, 2017 11:39 pm
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
In several ways I enjoyed the second (African swamp dragons) and third (Sea Serpents, Chinese dragons of many sorts, and Polynesian firewyrms) more than the first. The main character is more proactive. We start to see more of the outline of her life. I found it a bit easier to cope with the alternate-history geography too, either because I was more used to it, or because it was further away from places I'm familiar with.

I like the bits of her son Jake we get. There's so few fantasy novels with children and adults together.

And I'm more familiar with the alternate world. Several things are different: the series is set later than I'd realised (1890s?) but steam power is severely curtailed by the lack of iron, taking the place of various resource-scrambles Europe imposed on the world in our history.

And I still can't believe I missed everyone is Jewish, temple judiasm or "magisterium" judaism, but with the varied devotion victorian scholars had for Christianity.

As I'm re-reading, I see more things alluded to in the early volumes, about her eventual discoveries, and the misadventures she gets into, and her later remarriage, that make me excited to know which of the things I've read tie into those and which are still to come.

Every book seems to wend its way until the plot starts about 3/4 of the way through, but the third one I was really wrapped up in all the things that happened until that point, the difficulties of navigating a ship, negotiating chinese bureaucracy to get to see dragons, befriending islanders, surviving storms, performing experiments.

I'm still a bit put off by the alternate-history names for countries. Couldn't we just use the same names even if the shapes are different? It seems like more places are islands? And it feels weird I can't just look it all up online and see what corresponds to what, but here no-one seems to have done the work. I should compile a list of what I managed to work out for my own reference.

Minor Spoilers )
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
I'm not going to get all of this right, but there's quite a lot of things which have been annoying me. Please suggest corrections or additions.

Sinn Fein will not take their seats. They have not been taking their seats for a very very long time. There might be some circumstances where they might, but almost certainly only if (a) it's an issue overwhelmingly important to NI and (b) they would actually make a difference. Some constitutional hack, or swinging the UK govt one way or the other, is not likely to change that now.

Hence, report the true number for a majority, not the theoretical number if SF were going to vote against.

The PM usually resigns as PM when someone else is ready to take over. This almost never matters, but there there IS a PM in the intervening time.

This is the closest british equivalent to the concept of a "lame duck" in American politics, I think, because you don't usually have elections that take a long time to take effect.

Everything is usually organised very quickly. Whether or not it might be healthier to take longer, if there are any negotiations, they're usually a matter of hours or days, not weeks.

Two processes happen. The unofficial process is, "parties have talks and establish if they could possibly form a majority". This is much less complicated than many countries as there's usually not many different combinations who would *ever* work together. There's often only one real possibility.

The official process (well, more official -- almost everything is by convention) happens in parallel. If that the govt have a majority (either directly, by coalition, or by enough other MPs being willing to vote for them anyway), then they stay govt, there's no resign and reform. If not, the largest party have first crack at forming govt. Else, the second largest party. But usually, it's obvious in advance if this is possible or not, and only the possible options actually happen. (eg. govt resigns if opposition have a majority)

The fixed term parliament act did basically only one thing: prevent the larger party in a coalition calling an election against the wishes of the smaller party in a coalition. It may have very slightly increased the pressure on a govt not in coalition to not call snap elections, but apparently, not really. It did the thing that the people who designed obviously wanted.

It might or might not have been nice if the fixed term parliament act had actually made parliaments fixed term. It sort of looked like it might. But (a) it didn't and (b) I don't think the people who designed it just stupidly forgot it didn't, I think they just accepted they couldn't really fix that and didn't really try. Because (a) if there's a hung parliament, there's another election anyway (that makes sense, what else will you do?) and (b) if the govt want an election, even if they don't have 2/3 -- are the opposition going to come out and say "yes, we can rule better than them but we don't want to prove it"?

I'm not great at reading between the lines, but somehow even people who are presumably more socially aware than me often ignore things I find obvious and I don't know why. There are many, maybe most, cases of potential coalitions like this, but see Lib Dems in this election. Tim Farron says he won't form a coalition with the conservatives. Duh! Saying that would be electoral suicide. I don't know if he would like to, but I think he's pretty much *got* to deny it anyway[1]. Would he? Well, hopefully not. But if the conservatives offered an attractive enough deal (say, electoral reform and cancel brexit) one the public might actually like, would he say, "oh no, I'm sorry, I agree that would be best for the country, my party, and my own career, but too late"? But that doesn't happen, because they're not making that offer. If really really wanted to say never ever make it stick, he could probably say something bridge-burning.

It's not guaranteed, but you usually know which way the non-top-two parties will go. Ie. UUP and DUP are likely to prop up Con and not Lab. Lib-Dem are kind of split. Everyone else might prop up Lab but won't help Con. That doesn't mean they WILL prop up a government, but when you're considering potential governments, there's not usually a lot of different possibilities. Usually you'll get a majority. If not you can see a majority of "Lab or Con + parties generally disposed to them". If so, they'll usually work out SOMETHING. If the margin is thin it will be very flaky (eg a rainbow coalition needing many small parties to get a majority is likely to fall apart). Technically any "not majority" is a hung parliament, but that's only really the case if there's a significant chance of a deal not being struck. If no-one has a majority even with reluctant support, then probably whoever's closest (closest in numbers or closest to support from a large non-govt party) can eke out a minority government. If that doesn't happen, *then* there's a reasonable chance of a surprise, some party working a party you don't expect. And if not, then it's well and truly hung and will soon devolve into another election whether people want it or not (but that's really rare).

[1] See also, "PM says they won't resign". They always say that. If they have to, they have to, whatever they said, and if they're not in politics any more, what do they lose by having said the opposite?

ETA: And re: "English votes for English laws", even if the conservatives have *some* votes outside England, they still have a larger majority in England than in the UK as a whole. Somehow people (who usually know what they're talking about) keep seeming to think that Scottish tories and DUP don't count for England-only matters, but opposition MPs in Wales/Scotland would. But I don't understand why people think that?

Books etc

Jun. 11th, 2017 10:10 pm
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
Villains, Inc

Second in the series of Wearing the Cape superhero novels. Does a better job than most of building a world where superheroes make sense. I like the second one more in some ways, where the protagonist has grown a bit and is a lot more proactive. Although I don't remember much else.

I was interested to realise, "Villains Inc" was not just a catchy name but a reference to Murder Inc, the name given by the press to the organisation that span out of various crime families in the american mafia handling a majority of their contract killing[1].

[1] Also see:

Hanging Tree (Rivers of London #5)

I liked this more than almost any of the previous ones. The humour is firing on all cylinders. We stop discovering whole new tracts of supernatural beings surely SOMEONE would have mentioned by now, and return to the strongest topics, Peter's family, the rivers, Nightingale and the other magicians. There's almost none of Peter being an arse about women. We're still waiting to find out more about what happened to you-know-who, but we find out *something* about it.

Magnificent Seven remake

This was... ok. It had a few good moments.

The first 30 minutes of the Magnificent Seven were one of the best films ever made. An underwear salesman is trying to pay for the funeral of a guy who died in the street, but the funeral director won't take his money because no-one wants a black guy buried in the cemetery, even though it's full of disreputable people, murders, criminals, etc. The protagonists volunteer because why not, everyone watching chips in to pay for the wagon if necessary, for the spectacle more than out of the goodness of their hearts. There's an extended scene while they drive to the graveyard, shooting a variety of people who take potshots at them. Everything about it is just great. It's entertaining and tense. Even the minor characters are very memorable. It cements two of the major characters for you.

And the rest was ok, but not especially memorable. Writing is HARD, because you want EVERY PART of your story to blow people away, and it's really hard to say what makes that happen. And the same for the sequel. Nothing especially is wrong, it just all happens how you'd expect, and I never felt "Wow".

Stealing Light

The galaxy is de-facto ruled by the Shoal, the only species to have FTL. Humanity lives in the region of stars allocated to them. Now a human faction may have discovered an ancient pre-Shoal FTL ship.

I didn't really get into the book itself, but I really wanted to find out about the history and which races had FTL and how they interacted. I probably won't re-read it, but I may read the sequel.

Necessary for life

Jun. 11th, 2017 10:08 pm
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
In order for life to continue you need a variety of things. You need to severely curtail the number of fusion explosions around. You need oxygen. Need to not be underwater. Not to be constantly struck by lightning.

But funnily enough, for life to come about, you basically need the opposite of all those things.
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
Some sites don't load in chrome on this one computer. IE, ok. Chrome on another computer on the same network, ok. This one, doesn't load or loads reeeaaalllllyyy slowly. Any suggestions?

Snoozing stoats

Jun. 10th, 2017 08:14 pm
hilarita: a picture of my plush Asian short-clawed otter, Ching Shi (Ching Zhi)
[personal profile] hilarita
I watched the tennis this afternoon, and was very pleased to see Jelena Ostapenko win the French Open. She seems to have one setting, which is Exocet. I feel that to have further success on the tour, she may need improved range calibration. Then, she'd be pretty invincible.

Off to R-otterdam tomorrow. Sadly, probably no otters will be seen.

Dead phone

Jun. 10th, 2017 06:22 pm
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
Sigh, my phone seems to have worn out. I thought this one had been treated fairly well, with a case, and not suffering any disastrous drops. But now when I turn it on, it reboots again either immediately before finishing the boot sequence or as soon as I open an app.

I tried removing the case and waggling the buttons, and doing a factory reset and that didn't make a difference. Is there anything else I should try?

Assuming I need a replacement, what should I get? Probably a recent android phone. I used to always get nexus but pixel seem to have got expensive.

Mixed bag

Jun. 9th, 2017 02:19 pm
hilarita: casting my stoat (stoat)
[personal profile] hilarita


+ Big turnout in my seat, plus generally improved turnout across the country
+ May does not have a mandate for her Brexit plans
+ Nor for austerity
+ Nor for fucking up the NHS further
+ it's possible the youth vote is up (confirmation will come in a few days)

== UKIP's vote is down. I can't count this as a plus, because it's partly because the Conservative party have set up camp on Mount Brexit, and aren't letting go.


- FPTP is giving some very distorting results, both at a seat level (with tiny majorities), and at a national level, where seats won in no way reflect the proportion of votes cast
- while Labour increased their vote share, this didn't necessarily result in seats changing hands
- while May doesn't have a mandate, nor does anyone else
- Centrist Labour and media pundits really don't get Corbyn at all
- the fucking DUP hold the balance of power. Now I realise that not everyone's completely au fait with the DUP, but apart from wanting a sensible border with Ireland, allying with the DUP is akin to allying with UKIP, with bonus extra Northern Irish legacy of the Troubles for extra fun. Or think Mike Pence, but with corruption scandals.


It's been a mixed night for the Lib Dems. More seats (good), small loss of overall votes (not good).

I think that Brexit is probably the issue that's stopped Labour gaining a majority. In some of the pro-Remain areas, I suspect Labour won't have picked up quite so many votes. In the North, the Conservatives seem to have done well, by delivering on Brexit, and by (mostly) being a pro-pensioner party. It's a bit hard to see what's going on, because Brexit cut across traditional party lines; the lack of UKIP candidates has split UKIP voters between Con and Lab, and not in an entirely predictable way.Edited to add: It looks like Labour has done well in Remain areas, not by picking up UKIP votes, just by being Not Hard Brexit, and by promising to end austerity. I'll be interested to see further analysis. end edit
Obviously, my preferred solution to this would be to have a more proportional form of representation. This then deals with the disenfranchisement of supporters of minority parties. I know this would give more power to the right wing, but it also gives more power to the centre and the left wing. And disenfranchising racists makes them angry and doesn't really help. Having them in your parliament where they get to say their peace, vote their way, and then be legitimately overruled because it turns out that most people don't like racist fuckwits seems a better way. Obviously most of the smaller parties have been in favour of this for ages, but Labour really need to get this on the agenda, because with this generational and geographic spread of views, they might well struggle for a majority for a while to come.

I don't particularly like how the Labour party is run. I really don't like the hang 'em, flog 'em and spy on 'em views that are prevalent on the right of the Labour party. I do like some of their policies. I would prefer Corbyn to May, but I'd not be happy, because, while I'm confident that more or less the right things would happen with education and benefits and the NHS, I'm not at all confident that the right thing would happen with Brexit. Which would mean that Labour might struggle with trying to run a reforming programme while a) being distracted by Brexit or b) being distracted by the economic consequences of Brexit. Neither of which would do them much good. This is where I think PR of some form would help out - having loose coalitions on important issues would probably help build a Britain for the many, not the few, and encourage consensus politics over extremism.

I really didn't like the tendency for the press to consider Corbyn as Lenin's best mate, with no grip on reality. He clearly has a lot of popular appeal. He's clearly got a grip on what some popular policies look like. Perhaps Labour would have done even better to support him a little more. But perhaps centrist Labour should consider the idea that being bland shitweasels, with a dubious record on civil liberties and bombing the shit out of the middle East, isn't sufficient to make up for current party unity on the NHS, and that finding some morals in the back of a dusty wardrobe (however improbable that may be, especially considering the kinds of things you can find in wardrobes, like anti-Muslim monarchies) might just improve your electoral chances. Also, apologising for the Iraq War, and vowing to pay more attention to popular movements, might go some way to restoring Labour in the eyes of people like me, who were frankly horrified by their approach to this area.

Therefore, Labour's next steps should be for the Blairites to do a bit of soul-searching, and try to find it in them to understand that Corbyn has powerful appeal, and why that is. The whole Labour party should commit to PR, and implement it, even if they win a majority of Blairite proportions. We've shown over the past decade why reneging on this wasn't necessarily in Labour's interests. Also, this would then allow the Labour party to take stock on whether they really are one party, or whether they are two parties (Momentum and Blair Lite); if they did decide they were two parties, this would be less terrible for left of centre politics.

I think the Lib Dems did badly in Cambridge mostly because of the student and transient populations. Many of those won't remember Julian as a constituency MP before 2015. His own votes on tuition fees will have been overridden by Labour's promise to remove them. The pro-EU stance is already well covered by Daniel Zeichner. And Julian did vote for some of the worst benefits cuts as part of the coalition government, which is a perfectly legitimate reason to prefer Zeichner, who didn't have to even think about that, given he was a member of the Opposition. (Aldabra's also pointed this out - I did think of this at 4 in the morning, but curiously I decided not to write it down at that time...)

Nationally, I think we're still suffering from the aftermath of coalition government, and also Tim Farron coming across as a bit wet. Our policies were generally good, but we didn't have a policy like Tuition fees that was going to grab attention. The referendum on Brexit terms could have been such a policy, except it was very poorly reported, leading to an impression of a 'Brexit rerun' (and a sense of 'not being able to let go' and, right now, a bit of a saturation of big votes). Obviously, that's not what it was, but the media really, really didn't help here. Also, media coverage of Farron was likewise appalling, deliberately twisting his voting record on LGBT+ issues, despite literally every trans Lib Dem I know, plus other senior LGBT+ Lib Dems - often on important committees - spelling out how this was completely wrong.

We did make some good gains from the Conservatives. I'm more neutral about gains from Labour and the SNP - all that's doing is showing that the left wing is alive, well, and not distributed in a way that means it's easy to win more seats. I don't think it's all that significant that Nick Clegg went - I was pretty surprised he hung on in 2015. It is good that the party is more representative.

I'm not quite sure what the next steps are for the Lib Dems. Obviously, we still need to do the local election campaigning which has built a solid support base. We need to act as an opposition to Brexit, and any illiberal government policies (we can expect more of those because of the DUP). That's pretty much a given. I think the party needs to keep working on making sure that the grass roots and the parliamentary candidates are connected (Labour could do with this too); many of the coalition things that really hurt the LDs were voted for (reluctantly, often) by the Parliamentary party, while the rest of the party was screaming "For God's sake, don't do it." I'm not sure whether it's worth having a leadership election - it's definitely not a fall-on-your-sword awful election result, but it's not triumphant either. It's possible that a leadership contest would get someone with a bit more charisma, but possibly at the expense of distracting us from whatever lobbying needs to be done in order to try to mitigate the Great Brexit Fuck-Up.

Edited to add this paragraph Also, dozy stoat. I completely forgot to mention disability. Labour have at least two disabled MPs now. Despite the fuck-ups at the tail end of the Labour government, they're now solidly the party with a good message on disability (despite their inability to release their disability manifesto in accessible formats - minus several million for good thinking there). I know the LDs are making sensible moves in this direction (for instance, I was invited to be involved, but I was asked at a bad time, so I did fuck all about it - I should try to find some wossname from somewhere). But we need to do more - much, much more.

I'd hope that for key votes, all the opposition parties can vote together, in the hope that they can pick up a few Tory rebels. I'm glad it's not a Glorious Victory (TM) for May. It's a Pyrrhic Victory, but one that can still do so much damage.