Thanks.
All that said, it's still India as favourites, I'd say - with England a man down to injury, no Stokes, and one wicket down already, India are definitely ahead without any stats abuse.
Wet finger in the air, I'd say 5-to-1 against England pulling it off. Unlikely, but not implausible.

It's still true.
But fortunately England kept going and set a huge target of 522.
Australia scored 406 (and I noticed when they passed that 344 with 5 wickets down).
As it happens, that 344 maximum chase was by WI - with only 1 wicket down. I suspect they'd have managed 350+ as well...

It was really triggered way back in 2009, when England were setting a target for Australia at Lords. They were 350 ahead (at 170-odd for 3 or 4 in their second innings) and the commentators were discussing the target.
"They've already got enough - no-one's chased over 344 to win at Lords"

I always get twitchy at the "highest successful run chase" stats, because it filters an already limited number (67) down by excluding all losses with higher scores, all draws with higher scores or just ran out of time, and all wins where the target wasn't high enough.

Thing is, I don't think a draw is a risk, so we should look at simply highest 4th innings scores.
Top dozen chases are below (out of 67 total in Test history). Top 3 would certainly have been fine. I reckon the 308/4 and the 255/2 would have been odds-on to win as well.

On a straight swing (which is also flawed but has the benefit of giving the 2024 results off of the 2024 inputs) and holding SNP, Plaid, and Independents level, it gives:
Con 152
Lab 273
Ref 83
LD 80
SNP 22
Plaid 4
Independents 12

Have you taken a look at what it predicts when you put in exactly the same scores as the 2024 elections?
Apparently the Tories would win an extra 12 seats, Labour an extra 13, and LDs lose 23 seats if the next election was identical to the last one.
To me, that signals a broken model.

You've got to think that the problem of online radicalisation isn't just confined to youngsters.
The Leader of the Opposition is going around believing whatever crap she reads in her online "spheres"

What I'm picking up from a bunch of right wing sources and media outlets is that we should collectively treat far-right individuals as being above the law.
Prosecuting criminal behaviour by far-right politicians and figures is apparently unacceptable and will trigger the snowflake right. Hmm.

At least, that's what would happen to a "normal" person for those.
In the level of the Clinton case, a full apology could save your job.
In the level of the Trump (and Hegesth) cases, no apology would work. Only a corrupt judge would save you (luckily for him...), or a corrupt Government

The thing is - it WAS a scandal. However, the bar has since been raised so high, it's no longer visible. Context of levels of these:
Clinton emails: Called into office and possibly sacked
Trump classified documents: Sacked, jailed, 15-20 years
Hegseth & Co Signal stupidity: Next jail cell along.

It's usually the "have a single ID database linking together all tax, health, NI, driving, Home Office data and everything else about you" aspect.
It'd be a security nightmare if unauthorised access was ever obtained (existing siloed stuff has limits on the extent of potential damage).
Think DOGE