Famartin at Wikimedia Commons
Show Hide image

Don't trust the Daily Express's weather reports

A headline with two unnecessary words, perhaps.

Predicting the weather is hard even if you're a qualified meteoroligist. Just ask Michael Fish. But it's especially tricky if your key skill is sensationalistic headlines, rather than complex geophysical analysis. Which – perhaps – is why the Daily Express's track record when it comes to weather reports is somewhat subpar.

Scott Bryan has taken a look at the last year's worth of weather-related headlines from the nation's most popular combined Diana fanzine and publisher of serialised fiction, and found that what they lack in accuracy, they make up for in hysteria:

According to my own research, since September 2011:

Stories about the WEATHER [have] appeared on the front page Daily Express 111 times.

It has been the MAIN NEWS STORY OF THE DAY 52 times.

Also:

It has predicted hurricanes 3 times in the last year. It also claims that a hurricane hit Britain on the 4th January.

There has been 12 instances in the last year where it has predicted or has claimed weather ‘chaos’.

Bryan also went through the whole year's worth of weather related headlines and matched them to the Met Office reports for the month in question. The full list is a bit of a data overload, but the Media Blog has helpfully gone through and picked out the most egregious errors (click through for more):

For example take The Express's 20th October headline: "BIG FREEZE WILL KILL THOUSANDS". That ushered in the second warmest November in over 100 years according to the Met Office.

Or how about on 5th December when The Express told us: "WHY A WHITE CHRISTMAS IS A SURE BET". It followed this on the 17th December by declaring: "IT'S A WHITE CHRISTMAS". Sadly neither the bookies nor the snow Gods were listening eight days later as anybody backing The Express's 'sure thing' wasted their money.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Supreme Court gives MPs a vote on Brexit – but who are the real winners?

The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament must have a say in starting the process of Brexit. But this may be a hollow victory for Labour. 

The Supreme Court has ruled by a majority of 8 to 3 that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an Act of Parliament, as leaving the European Union represents a change of a source of UK law, and a loss of rights by UK citizens, which can only be authorised by the legislature, not the executive. (You can read the full judgement here).

But crucially, they have unanimously ruled that the devolved parliaments do not need to vote before the government triggers Article 50.

Which as far as Brexit is concerned, doesn't change very much. There is a comfortable majority to trigger Article 50 in both Houses of Parliament. It will highlight Labour's agonies over just how to navigate the Brexit vote and to keep its coalition together, but as long as Brexit is top of the agenda, that will be the case.

And don't think that Brexit will vanish any time soon. As one senior Liberal Democrat pointed out, "it took Greenland three years to leave - and all they had to talk about was fish". We will be disentangling ourselves from the European Union for years, and very possibly for decades. Labour's Brexit problem has a long  way yet to run.

While the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will not be able to stop or delay Brexit, that their rights have been unanimously ruled against will be a boon to Sinn Féin in the elections in March, and a longterm asset to the SNP as well. The most important part of all this: that the ruling will be seen in some parts of Northern Ireland as an unpicking of the Good Friday Agreement. That issue hasn't gone away, you know. 

But it's Theresa May who today's judgement really tells you something about. She could very easily have shrugged off the High Court's judgement as one of those things and passed Article 50 through the Houses of Parliament by now. (Not least because the High Court judgement didn't weaken the powers of the executive or require the devolved legislatures, both of which she risked by carrying on the fight.)

If you take one thing from that, take this: the narrative that the PM is indecisive or cautious has more than a few holes in it. Just ask George Osborne, Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan and Ed Vaizey: most party leaders would have refrained from purging an entire faction overnight, but not May.

Far from being risk-averse, the PM is prone to a fight. And in this case, she's merely suffered delay, rather than disaster. But it may be that far from being undone by caution, it will be her hotblooded streak that brings about the end of Theresa May.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.