Fresh lilaced moorland fields

[cincinnatus_c]

I guess it probably isn't the case (or maybe it is, I don't know) that elections everywhere keep getting more demographically deterministic, but it does get more and more maddening to look at maps of electoral results and see, yep, there's that again. That being that you can see where all the cities are, because they're the little islands of little districts won by the party on the left, in the big sea of big districts won by the party on the right. It strikes me looking at the British electoral map this morning--you've got to love the plucky little red dots like Plymouth and Exeter--that the single biggest demographic factor determining the likelihood of your voting Labour may be how far you live from your nearest (say) thousand neighbours. (It is interesting that it works that way much more than the other way around--i.e. it looks like the SNP may control as much British territory as Labour if not more, and the LibDems aren't too far behind them by virtue of holding northern Scotland and most of Lake District National Park ... overall it looks like the Conservatives probably have the sixth-highest territory-to-seats ratio behind (in some order) the SNP, LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, and the DUP. Anyway on the whole that may make sense if you suppose that Labour is the we're-all-in-this-together party and all the others (except the LibDems, which ... exist for some reason) are different varieties and degrees of screw-you-guys parties. [ETA: I'm not unaware of the irony (not to say evidence of bias) in identifying a party with an explicit class base as the we're-all-in-this-together party.])

In other numerical curiosities this morning, right now there are two teams in the American League with losing records at home, and they are the first- and second-place teams in the Central division.

Currently at Havelock: 19.9.