Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The projection on 5/5/22 that could end Johnson or save him – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,161
edited March 2022 in General
imageThe projection on 5/5/22 that could end Johnson or save him – politicalbetting.com

The above table is of the BBC’s Projected National Vote Shares that is computed by leading political scientists in the hours after the May local elections.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Lot of pressure on LAB to convert the good polls into real votes.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    Evening all :)

    Maybe first, maybe not - who cares?

    We have the small matter of the London local elections this year - the Conservatives will be hoping to hang on to as many of their 500 Councillors in the capital as possible.

    A good night for Labour will mean, in my view, taking Wandsworth, Barnet and maybe Hillingdon at a stretch. Hard to see the likes of K&C and Westminster falling, likewise Bromley and Bexley.

    LDs holding on to all three of their Boroughs and getting some councillors elected will be good for them.

    A good night for the Conservatives - keeping what they have and capturing either an LD or a Labour borough.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    Lot of pressure on LAB to convert the good polls into real votes.

    Be a bit difficult until we have one, though.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Maybe first, maybe not - who cares?

    We have the small matter of the London local elections this year - the Conservatives will be hoping to hang on to as many of their 500 Councillors in the capital as possible.

    A good night for Labour will mean, in my view, taking Wandsworth, Barnet and maybe Hillingdon at a stretch. Hard to see the likes of K&C and Westminster falling, likewise Bromley and Bexley.

    LDs holding on to all three of their Boroughs and getting some councillors elected will be good for them.

    A good night for the Conservatives - keeping what they have and capturing either an LD or a Labour borough.

    Kingston is probably the Cons best shot in London, and I think the LDs probably lose a couple of councillors but hang on.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,497

    Lot of pressure on LAB to convert the good polls into real votes.

    Lib Dems been getting the local by elections votes, hurting both main party’s.

    Bring on the May elections. Tory bloodbath, Lib Dems winning everywhere - ave it!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    FWIW, I would expect something like:

    C 32
    L 37
    LD 18

    Which will mean you'll see gains for Lab and LD, but no bloodbath.
  • Lot of pressure on LAB to convert the good polls into real votes.

    Lib Dems been getting the local by elections votes, hurting both main party’s.

    Bring on the May elections. Tory bloodbath, Lib Dems winning everywhere - ave it!
    "Parties", please!
  • Two months and 8 days since the last Tory poll lead.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    edited February 2022
    Slovenia votes on April 24th and the huge change is the emergence of the new Svoboda movement under Robert Golob which in the latest Ninamedia poll with 27.2%.

    Golob has taken the Green Actions Party and turned it into the new leading political force of the centre and centre-left in Slovenia. He has opened negotiations with four other centre-left parties to create a united front opposition bloc to run against the ruling Slovenian Democratic Party of Prime Minister Janez Jansa.

    The three parties in the current governing coalition have seen their vote share fall from 46% at the last election to an estimated 33.6% now while Golob's prospective coalition would have 55.4% based on the Ninamedia poll.

    Long way to go but could be a really interesting election.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705

    Lot of pressure on LAB to convert the good polls into real votes.

    Lib Dems been getting the local by elections votes, hurting both main party’s.

    Bring on the May elections. Tory bloodbath, Lib Dems winning everywhere - ave it!
    "Parties", please!
    Parties is probably not the word Boris wants to hear.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Maybe first, maybe not - who cares?

    We have the small matter of the London local elections this year - the Conservatives will be hoping to hang on to as many of their 500 Councillors in the capital as possible.

    A good night for Labour will mean, in my view, taking Wandsworth, Barnet and maybe Hillingdon at a stretch. Hard to see the likes of K&C and Westminster falling, likewise Bromley and Bexley.

    LDs holding on to all three of their Boroughs and getting some councillors elected will be good for them.

    A good night for the Conservatives - keeping what they have and capturing either an LD or a Labour borough.

    Evening Stodge, what's your betting for Enfield? I've heard from my parents and a lot of their friends that no one is happy with the current Labour council who are essentially just a dictatorship at this stage so there could be some push back from voters though probably not enough to actually change control of the council.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    ydoethur said:

    Lot of pressure on LAB to convert the good polls into real votes.

    Be a bit difficult until we have one, though.
    A mere detail.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....
  • rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Maybe first, maybe not - who cares?

    We have the small matter of the London local elections this year - the Conservatives will be hoping to hang on to as many of their 500 Councillors in the capital as possible.

    A good night for Labour will mean, in my view, taking Wandsworth, Barnet and maybe Hillingdon at a stretch. Hard to see the likes of K&C and Westminster falling, likewise Bromley and Bexley.

    LDs holding on to all three of their Boroughs and getting some councillors elected will be good for them.

    A good night for the Conservatives - keeping what they have and capturing either an LD or a Labour borough.

    Kingston is probably the Cons best shot in London, and I think the LDs probably lose a couple of councillors but hang on.
    Noticeable that nobody I've seen has suggested Havering (Romford, Upminster and the bits around and in between) as a possible Conservative gain.

    On paper, it ought to be attainable. The winning post in 2018 was 27 seats, the Conservatives got 25, and there's still a bit of UKIP vote to squeeze. But I don't think anyone seriously expects the Conservatives to move forward- partly becuase it would be at the expense of various shades of Residents Association.

    Havering politics are bonkers.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Maybe first, maybe not - who cares?

    We have the small matter of the London local elections this year - the Conservatives will be hoping to hang on to as many of their 500 Councillors in the capital as possible.

    A good night for Labour will mean, in my view, taking Wandsworth, Barnet and maybe Hillingdon at a stretch. Hard to see the likes of K&C and Westminster falling, likewise Bromley and Bexley.

    LDs holding on to all three of their Boroughs and getting some councillors elected will be good for them.

    A good night for the Conservatives - keeping what they have and capturing either an LD or a Labour borough.

    Kingston is probably the Cons best shot in London, and I think the LDs probably lose a couple of councillors but hang on.
    Also worth pointing out a lot of the Boroughs have had boundary changes - Newham for example now has 66 council seats rather than 60. I suspect all that will mean is six more Labour Councillors but I could be proved wrong.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    rcs1000 said:

    FWIW, I would expect something like:

    C 32
    L 37
    LD 18

    Which will mean you'll see gains for Lab and LD, but no bloodbath.

    Looks about right to me.
  • I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    I dunno, you could use it just once more and eff off somewhere else, with your silly Irish flag, and stop yer endless whining about Britain on here
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    OK I have to make it to 11pm. That's my target. I've stayed awake so far. 11pm

    *jabs fork in thigh*
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    edited February 2022
    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    Leon said:

    OK I have to make it to 11pm. That's my target. I've stayed awake so far. 11pm

    *jabs fork in thigh*

    You are doing pretty well here for someone on the edge of 40 winks I must say.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    There is a RAF Globemaster over Ukraine at the mo.
  • Leon said:

    OK I have to make it to 11pm. That's my target. I've stayed awake so far. 11pm

    *jabs fork in thigh*

    You just need to make some more posts tonight to get you to your target 👍
  • Leon said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    I dunno, you could use it just once more and eff off somewhere else, with your silly Irish flag, and stop yer endless whining about Britain on here
    You are a fine one to talk about wining :D
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    The equations are useful to some degree, the Drake equation is essentially a probabilistic distillation of factors. For example we know some of the factors that go into it with others we have an idea where they might be. The usefulness is in having some reassurance that there is a measurable amount of intelligent life in the galaxy.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    Need some advice from our resident Californians, my wife and I have got 3 weeks in Mexico coming up, one of which we're both working so will be in Mexico city which leaves us with two weeks, we're looking at one of the weeks in/around La Paz and Cabo but not sure what to do for the other week. Any ideas?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    edited February 2022

    Leon said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    I dunno, you could use it just once more and eff off somewhere else, with your silly Irish flag, and stop yer endless whining about Britain on here
    You are a fine one to talk about wining :D
    Really? I thought he was more a cocktail man.

    As befits a knapper of flint cocks...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    As an Irish passport holder you remain a citizen of Europe and the World.

    You can laugh heartily at me as you breeze through your Mediterranean holiday destination airport whilst I queue with the Russians at immigration.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    MaxPB said:

    Need some advice from our resident Californians, my wife and I have got 3 weeks in Mexico coming up, one of which we're both working so will be in Mexico city which leaves us with two weeks, we're looking at one of the weeks in/around La Paz and Cabo but not sure what to do for the other week. Any ideas?

    Punta Mita? It's like Cabo but much nicer.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    No, because you write so boringly my eyes glaze over by sentence two. Sorry.

    Also you're wrong

    I heard a great, concrete explanation for the Fermi Paradox the other day, from a science friend (who talks and writes articulately) who went on an anthropological expedition to the Solomon Islands

    He heard a story there of the first white explorers who encountered the Solomon Islanders. When the locals got a bit punchy, in the early days, the white troops would fire muskets into the sky to scare them off. But the muskets had no effect, at all. Why? Because the locals did not hear them. The muksets were outside their comprehension. The locals maybe heard an "odd noise" a bit like thunder (as they later explained to the white men) but they looked at the sky and it was blue and cloudless so they thought, no, there is no thunder, so they totally ignored the guns no matter how much they were fired into the air, the firing guns DID NOT EXIST in their minds

    That could easily be happening to us. We could be surrounded by aliens and we just don't see them. They do not compute. The mind blanks them out as too "alien" - literally - to be understood or of concern. They are de-existed

    Men in Black riffed on this theme very amusingly, but there is a scientific truth here. Which may explain it all
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Need some advice from our resident Californians, my wife and I have got 3 weeks in Mexico coming up, one of which we're both working so will be in Mexico city which leaves us with two weeks, we're looking at one of the weeks in/around La Paz and Cabo but not sure what to do for the other week. Any ideas?

    Punta Mita? It's like Cabo but much nicer.
    We were genuinely thinking of somewhere a little more rustic, it's probably going to be our last time travelling as just a couple and we've got the next 15-20 years to do luxury resorts.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Your last point is the kicker: space is big beyond imagination. Which means that the chance of life (of some kind) being out there is probably quite high...

    ...but it also means that the chances of us being able to detect or interact with any of that life out there is... very small.
  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    I dunno, you could use it just once more and eff off somewhere else, with your silly Irish flag, and stop yer endless whining about Britain on here
    You are a fine one to talk about wining :D
    Really? I thought he was more a cocktail man.

    As befits a knapper of flint cocks...
    Are you suggesting he likes to tell cock tales?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    I dunno, you could use it just once more and eff off somewhere else, with your silly Irish flag, and stop yer endless whining about Britain on here
    You are a fine one to talk about wining :D
    Really? I thought he was more a cocktail man.

    As befits a knapper of flint cocks...
    Are you suggesting he likes to tell cock tales?
    I think I'm going to chicken out at this point.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    Eabhal said:

    There is a RAF Globemaster over Ukraine at the mo.

    I reckon it's helping with the evacuation of the US Embassy - it's landing in Lviv.

    The UK embassy phone line is down - seems a bit sus.
  • I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    As an Irish passport holder you remain a citizen of Europe and the World.

    You can laugh heartily at me as you breeze through your Mediterranean holiday destination airport whilst I queue with the Russians at immigration.
    Perhaps the Russians will slip you a few vodkas?
  • rcs1000 said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Your last point is the kicker: space is big beyond imagination. Which means that the chance of life (of some kind) being out there is probably quite high...

    ...but it also means that the chances of us being able to detect or interact with any of that life out there is... very small.
    But let's be honest. Given the track record of how humans treat other forms of life...

    ... that's probably for the best.

    (Detection might be possible. Communication, I doubt it. Visiting... you need some kind of magic kludge to get FTL travel. Otherwise, it will take too much time.)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    rcs1000 said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Your last point is the kicker: space is big beyond imagination. Which means that the chance of life (of some kind) being out there is probably quite high...

    ...but it also means that the chances of us being able to detect or interact with any of that life out there is... very small.
    Yes, until we can actually explore and have the technology to detect what is very long distances away without needing to actually go there it's going to be close to impossible. I'd love to still be around when we break the light speed barrier but I fear it's another two lifetimes away.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    rcs1000 said:

    FWIW, I would expect something like:

    C 32
    L 37
    LD 18

    Which will mean you'll see gains for Lab and LD, but no bloodbath.

    Bearing in mind that the best lead Labour have in the table in the thread header was 2 points in 2014, I think that would be a good result for Labour (though I'm about to check other local election results from the Miliband era..)

    Okay. (L-C)
    2013: 29-25
    2012: 38-31
    2011: 37-35

    So I'm going to revise my view on 37-32 - it looks more like a solid, middle-of-the-road sort of result for Labour. Given the hole Corbyn put them in, Starmer would probably have taken it when he became leader, but would fall short of the statements on here from some that the Tories are now irrevocably dead to the electorate. You'd expect Labour to at least equal the +7 achieved under Miliband in 2012 if that were the case.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    As an Irish passport holder you remain a citizen of Europe and the World.

    You can laugh heartily at me as you breeze through your Mediterranean holiday destination airport whilst I queue with the Russians at immigration.
    Perhaps the Russians will slip you a few vodkas?
    You have given me an idea, I suppose one of the advantages I now have as a blue/black passport holding citizen of Greater England is I now benefit from Duty Free alcohol shopping.

    A Brexit bonus after all. So it was worth it.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Clearly life can exist because we are here but it could be a one off event. Would the lottery analogy hold up for you if you imagined we only had a lottery once. A straight ' there are lots of planets and we are here therefore life exists elsewhere'' does not hold. However the other theories, right or wrong, do provide stronger evidence of life elsewhere, but that goes over my head.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    MaxPB said:


    Evening Stodge, what's your betting for Enfield? I've heard from my parents and a lot of their friends that no one is happy with the current Labour council who are essentially just a dictatorship at this stage so there could be some push back from voters though probably not enough to actually change control of the council.

    Enfield was once solid Conservative - in 2002 the Conservatives took control winning 39 of the 63 seats. Since then, the Conservatives have lost ground at every election losing control in 2010 and in 2018 won just 17 but they got one back from Labour at a by-election in May 2021 in the marginal ward of Chase.

    On the same day, the Conservatives got big swings in two other by-elections and in July easily held a seat in the marginal Bush Hill Park ward but that was then...

    Labour won 46 seats in 2018 but have just 38 now with the by-election loss to the Tories and seven quitting to form a Community First caucus consisting of 1 LD, 1 Green and 5 Independents.

    This may or may not complicate matters - some of the ex-Labour Councillors sit in marginal wards which could let the Conservatives make some headway.

    I can't see fewer than 36 for Labour and fewer than 9 for the Conservatives but the remaining 18 seats look up for grabs.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Clearly life can exist because we are here but it could be a one off event. Would the lottery analogy hold up for you if you imagined we only had a lottery once. A straight ' there are lots of planets and we are here therefore life exists elsewhere'' does not hold. However the other theories, right or wrong, do provide stronger evidence of life elsewhere, but that goes over my head.
    It definitely could be just a one-off event here.

    But statistically, which seems likelier? That we're truly special and alone in the entirety of the vast cosmos which has been around for billions of years before us? Or that us, being here, is in itself evidence that it's unlikely, sure but not wildly so, probability MUST be greater than zero even if still negligible, and the galaxy is large enough and old enough for other instances of it to happen just on sheer scale, even if it's so far away or so long ago we never see it?

    My money is on the latter. The former is just too anthropocentric, I'm afraid.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    No, because you write so boringly my eyes glaze over by sentence two. Sorry.

    Also you're wrong

    I heard a great, concrete explanation for the Fermi Paradox the other day, from a science friend (who talks and writes articulately) who went on an anthropological expedition to the Solomon Islands

    He heard a story there of the first white explorers who encountered the Solomon Islanders. When the locals got a bit punchy, in the early days, the white troops would fire muskets into the sky to scare them off. But the muskets had no effect, at all. Why? Because the locals did not hear them. The muksets were outside their comprehension. The locals maybe heard an "odd noise" a bit like thunder (as they later explained to the white men) but they looked at the sky and it was blue and cloudless so they thought, no, there is no thunder, so they totally ignored the guns no matter how much they were fired into the air, the firing guns DID NOT EXIST in their minds

    That could easily be happening to us. We could be surrounded by aliens and we just don't see them. They do not compute. The mind blanks them out as too "alien" - literally - to be understood or of concern. They are de-existed

    Men in Black riffed on this theme very amusingly, but there is a scientific truth here. Which may explain it all
    Well I tried to reply politely, but that didn't seem to work.. You reply I'm wrong without attempting to deal with the maths and then drivel on about unrelated nonsense. I suggest going to bed.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:


    Evening Stodge, what's your betting for Enfield? I've heard from my parents and a lot of their friends that no one is happy with the current Labour council who are essentially just a dictatorship at this stage so there could be some push back from voters though probably not enough to actually change control of the council.

    Enfield was once solid Conservative - in 2002 the Conservatives took control winning 39 of the 63 seats. Since then, the Conservatives have lost ground at every election losing control in 2010 and in 2018 won just 17 but they got one back from Labour at a by-election in May 2021 in the marginal ward of Chase.

    On the same day, the Conservatives got big swings in two other by-elections and in July easily held a seat in the marginal Bush Hill Park ward but that was then...

    Labour won 46 seats in 2018 but have just 38 now with the by-election loss to the Tories and seven quitting to form a Community First caucus consisting of 1 LD, 1 Green and 5 Independents.

    This may or may not complicate matters - some of the ex-Labour Councillors sit in marginal wards which could let the Conservatives make some headway.

    I can't see fewer than 36 for Labour and fewer than 9 for the Conservatives but the remaining 18 seats look up for grabs.
    Thanks for the summary, I wonder how much of the Bush Hill Park swing was national swing and how much was local issues, if it was the latter then from what my parents say everything has got worse in the past year.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    The other thing you have to bear in mind is life isn't just us, i.e. humans.

    This planet teems with it. Every available niche, nook and cranny is filled with it. The Earth might be a paradise for the Universe, and it might just be special in that regard. But I reckon life is so desperate to fill any available opportunity that you can find it reasonably easily when you can look for it.

    That doesn't mean aliens, galactic empires and all that automatically, but if you can go to all these exoplanets I reckon we'll find the simple single cell stuff is considerably more ubiquitous than you'd think. And if that's the case, then the more complex stuff is probably not so rare either.

    But again: scale. Scale and distance is the problem.
  • MaxPB said:

    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:


    Evening Stodge, what's your betting for Enfield? I've heard from my parents and a lot of their friends that no one is happy with the current Labour council who are essentially just a dictatorship at this stage so there could be some push back from voters though probably not enough to actually change control of the council.

    Enfield was once solid Conservative - in 2002 the Conservatives took control winning 39 of the 63 seats. Since then, the Conservatives have lost ground at every election losing control in 2010 and in 2018 won just 17 but they got one back from Labour at a by-election in May 2021 in the marginal ward of Chase.

    On the same day, the Conservatives got big swings in two other by-elections and in July easily held a seat in the marginal Bush Hill Park ward but that was then...

    Labour won 46 seats in 2018 but have just 38 now with the by-election loss to the Tories and seven quitting to form a Community First caucus consisting of 1 LD, 1 Green and 5 Independents.

    This may or may not complicate matters - some of the ex-Labour Councillors sit in marginal wards which could let the Conservatives make some headway.

    I can't see fewer than 36 for Labour and fewer than 9 for the Conservatives but the remaining 18 seats look up for grabs.
    Thanks for the summary, I wonder how much of the Bush Hill Park swing was national swing and how much was local issues, if it was the latter then from what my parents say everything has got worse in the past year.
    Has Enfield gone in for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

    Without going into the rights and wrongs of the policy (SERIOUSLY. DON'T GO INTO THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF THE POLICY), they are the sort of mega-local, incredibly strong emotion thing that might swing a local election but probably won't.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561
    rcs1000 said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Your last point is the kicker: space is big beyond imagination. Which means that the chance of life (of some kind) being out there is probably quite high...

    ...but it also means that the chances of us being able to detect or interact with any of that life out there is... very small.
    There may now be untold gazillion intelligent civilizations trying to make sense of I Love Lucy, sent out to the Universe decades ago. Signals which weren't meant for us to hear, or perhaps signals simply saying "Hello!" like the Wow! signal.

    Of course, "seeing" messages by light requires the observer to have developed the retina first...
  • Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC

    Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Clearly life can exist because we are here but it could be a one off event. Would the lottery analogy hold up for you if you imagined we only had a lottery once. A straight ' there are lots of planets and we are here therefore life exists elsewhere'' does not hold. However the other theories, right or wrong, do provide stronger evidence of life elsewhere, but that goes over my head.
    It definitely could be just a one-off event here.

    But statistically, which seems likelier? That we're truly special and alone in the entirety of the vast cosmos which has been around for billions of years before us? Or that us, being here, is in itself evidence that it's unlikely, sure but not wildly so, probability MUST be greater than zero even if still negligible, and the galaxy is large enough and old enough for other instances of it to happen just on sheer scale, even if it's so far away or so long ago we never see it?

    My money is on the latter. The former is just too anthropocentric, I'm afraid.
    Oh I don't disagree. I was just pointing out Leon's argument for this was flawed (see my previous posts where I mention some of the various theories that do argue for the case of life elsewhere more rigerously). Leon's argument is often sited as a reason for believing life exists elsewhere but it is far too simplistic and makes a common error in the application of probability.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,243
    MaxPB said:

    Need some advice from our resident Californians, my wife and I have got 3 weeks in Mexico coming up, one of which we're both working so will be in Mexico city which leaves us with two weeks, we're looking at one of the weeks in/around La Paz and Cabo but not sure what to do for the other week. Any ideas?

    Go to see the Aztec ruins
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Clearly life can exist because we are here but it could be a one off event. Would the lottery analogy hold up for you if you imagined we only had a lottery once. A straight ' there are lots of planets and we are here therefore life exists elsewhere'' does not hold. However the other theories, right or wrong, do provide stronger evidence of life elsewhere, but that goes over my head.
    It definitely could be just a one-off event here.

    But statistically, which seems likelier? That we're truly special and alone in the entirety of the vast cosmos which has been around for billions of years before us? Or that us, being here, is in itself evidence that it's unlikely, sure but not wildly so, probability MUST be greater than zero even if still negligible, and the galaxy is large enough and old enough for other instances of it to happen just on sheer scale, even if it's so far away or so long ago we never see it?

    My money is on the latter. The former is just too anthropocentric, I'm afraid.
    Oh I don't disagree. I was just pointing out Leon's argument for this was flawed (see my previous posts where I mention some of the various theories that do argue for the case of life elsewhere more rigerously). Leon's argument is often sited as a reason for believing life exists elsewhere but it is far too simplistic and makes a common error in the application of probability.
    Ah fair enough, I see
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786

    rcs1000 said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Your last point is the kicker: space is big beyond imagination. Which means that the chance of life (of some kind) being out there is probably quite high...

    ...but it also means that the chances of us being able to detect or interact with any of that life out there is... very small.
    There may now be untold gazillion intelligent civilizations trying to make sense of I Love Lucy, sent out to the Universe decades ago. Signals which weren't meant for us to hear, or perhaps signals simply saying "Hello!" like the Wow! signal.

    Of course, "seeing" messages by light requires the observer to have developed the retina first...
    If they are viewing I Love Lucy that might be why they haven't made contact. Clearly we aren't intelligent life.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    edited February 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    It was nonetheless fine for Johnson to fire Ian Blair.

    Johnson really is Britain Trump.

    As suggested on here a few days ago (nothing now to hinder) Paul Dacre for Met. Commissioner.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    It was nonetheless fine for Johnson to fire Ian Blair.

    Johnson really is Britain Trump.

    As suggested on here a few days ago (nothing now to hinder) Paul Dacre for Met. Commissioner.
    There is a point somewhere in here. Whi is responsible for appointing the met commissioner? Who do they report to? For all that Khan has brought her down, he is not the boss.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC

    Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
    BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC

    Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
    Isn't that the problem
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    MaxPB said:


    Thanks for the summary, I wonder how much of the Bush Hill Park swing was national swing and how much was local issues, if it was the latter then from what my parents say everything has got worse in the past year.

    The Bush Hill Park by-election took place on the same day as the Batley & Spen by-election at a time when the Conservatives were enjoying double digit poll leads.

    On a 29% turnout, the Conservative candidate won by 27 points so even with the shift in sentiment it's going to be a big ask for Labour to pick up the three council seats but they don't need to and even if some of the defectors hold their seats I think there's enough in the solid Labour seats to keep the majority though I agree it could well be reduced quite a bit.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    It was nonetheless fine for Johnson to fire Ian Blair.

    Johnson really is Britain Trump.

    As suggested on here a few days ago (nothing now to hinder) Paul Dacre for Met. Commissioner.
    There is a point somewhere in here. Whi is responsible for appointing the met commissioner? Who do they report to? For all that Khan has brought her down, he is not the boss.
    The HS, however why was it OK for Johnson to sack Blair?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    It was nonetheless fine for Johnson to fire Ian Blair.

    Johnson really is Britain Trump.

    As suggested on here a few days ago (nothing now to hinder) Paul Dacre for Met. Commissioner.
    There is a point somewhere in here. Whi is responsible for appointing the met commissioner? Who do they report to? For all that Khan has brought her down, he is not the boss.
    The HS, however why was it OK for Johnson to sack Blair?
    Well it probably wasn’t, would be the answer. Two wrongs and all that apply.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,243

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    It was nonetheless fine for Johnson to fire Ian Blair.

    Johnson really is Britain Trump.

    As suggested on here a few days ago (nothing now to hinder) Paul Dacre for Met. Commissioner.
    There is a point somewhere in here. Whi is responsible for appointing the met commissioner? Who do they report to? For all that Khan has brought her down, he is not the boss.
    The HS, however why was it OK for Johnson to sack Blair?
    Did Blair have the national roles at the time or was the Met Commissioner just a local role?
  • I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    The South Shetland Islands beckon!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    It was nonetheless fine for Johnson to fire Ian Blair.

    Johnson really is Britain Trump.

    As suggested on here a few days ago (nothing now to hinder) Paul Dacre for Met. Commissioner.
    There is a point somewhere in here. Whi is responsible for appointing the met commissioner? Who do they report to? For all that Khan has brought her down, he is not the boss.
    The HS, however why was it OK for Johnson to sack Blair?
    Well it probably wasn’t, would be the answer. Two wrongs and all that apply.
    No, Johnson as usual has his cake and eats it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    edited February 2022

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    Not much point. With an Irish passport you can live and vote here, the EU and have visa free travel to much of the world. The Irish passport may well be the best in the world.

    Even not renewing your UK passport, you keep your dual citizenship, so can benefit from UK consular assistance if stuck in Kharkiv etc.
  • Under 28% Con ought to do the trick.
  • Judging by the description that BBC's Moscow journo is giving of Russian state media messaging on Ukr, the Young Labour press and twitter messages seem identical.

    NATO aggression. US expansionism, Russians as victims etc etc.

    Uncanny...

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    pigeon said:

    Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:

    People aged 65 and over

    1993

    own outright: 55.7%
    own with mortgage: 5.8%
    private rental sector: 6.3%
    social rental sector: 32.2%

    2017

    own outright: 74.2%
    own with mortgage: 4.4%
    private rental sector: 5.6%
    social rental sector: 15.8%

    People aged 16 to 64

    1993

    own outright: 14.0%
    own with mortgage: 56.2%
    private rental sector: 10.8%
    social rental sector: 19.0%

    2017

    own outright: 17.4%
    own with mortgage: 40.0%
    private rental sector: 25.2%
    social rental sector: 17.5%

    In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.

    Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglonger/changesinhousingtenureovertime#:~:text=Main points,two-thirds 20 years earlier.

    + Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.

    + Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.

    + People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.

    + Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.

    + Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.

    + The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.


    An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.

    Great Post. Enough to develop a header from.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    It was nonetheless fine for Johnson to fire Ian Blair.

    Johnson really is Britain Trump.

    As suggested on here a few days ago (nothing now to hinder) Paul Dacre for Met. Commissioner.
    There is a point somewhere in here. Whi is responsible for appointing the met commissioner? Who do they report to? For all that Khan has brought her down, he is not the boss.
    The HS, however why was it OK for Johnson to sack Blair?
    Did Blair have the national roles at the time or was the Met Commissioner just a local role?
    I don't know. I assume, as is now.
  • kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    FPT for KJH

    "How do you know it is nonsense? Great brains have no idea so how do you?"


    +++++

    That's my point. It is nonsense to presume we "know", or can "know", that we are all alone, via some fucking daft "equation" with so many imponderables and variables it is almost without utility.

    What we know is that life formed, and exploded, on the one planet in our solar system able to host it. And possibly on others in this solar system, maybe several times, we dunno

    There are BILLIONS of planets like ours out there, in our galaxy, and there are 200 BILLION galaxies, and we may be just one universe amongst an infinite number which may interact.....

    Wild wild guess: we are not alone, we are just like the Easter Islanders, staring at the vastness of a lonely Pacific ocean, and thinking, "Oh well, just us then"

    And then they saw the first Dutch Indiaman, sailing over the horizon....

    Hi @Leon you have repeated the same flawed argument. Before I explain why again just let me say I have not a clue whether life exists elsewhere and although my background is as a mathematician these theories are way above anything I can understand but I accept they give credence to the likelihood of life hence my doubt one way or another.

    However your assumption doesn't hold. It is flawed and I can explain why that is the case because that isn't such advanced maths. You have assumed that because life exists here and there are a huge number of stars and planets that it probably exists elsewhere. This is flawed probability because you are only able to have that thought because it is after the event. You don't exist on Mercury to have the opposite thought. So we could equally be unique. Even if the probability of life is so small that it probably won't happen you are at the after event where it did (probability of 1).Try this analogy: If you win the lottery jackpot one week you could easily be the only winner, but you don't think if I have won there has to be other winners do you? But that is exactly what you are doing.

    Does that make sense?
    I'm not sure the lottery analogy holds up, if I'm honest. Sure, you might be the sole lucky guy who beat the odds this week in this discrete event. But you know other folk have beaten the same odds before at different times. Doesn't mean you know you will win, but it means you know it can be done.

    The point is if you do the thing that leads to the incredibly unlikely thing enough times, you start to build up a cohort of instances where someone somewhere's beaten the odds.

    I'm not really sure that that's much different with the emergence of life, with the only real limiting factor being that space is big. Really big. So even when it happens, noone else is nearby enough to see it.
    Your last point is the kicker: space is big beyond imagination. Which means that the chance of life (of some kind) being out there is probably quite high...

    ...but it also means that the chances of us being able to detect or interact with any of that life out there is... very small.
    There may now be untold gazillion intelligent civilizations trying to make sense of I Love Lucy, sent out to the Universe decades ago. Signals which weren't meant for us to hear, or perhaps signals simply saying "Hello!" like the Wow! signal.

    Of course, "seeing" messages by light requires the observer to have developed the retina first...
    If they are viewing I Love Lucy that might be why they haven't made contact. Clearly we aren't intelligent life.
    Deeply shocked & saddened by you overt, rampant anti-Celto/Cubano prejudice! Have you no shame?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Foxy said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    Not much point. With an Irish passport you can live and vote here, the EU and have visa free travel to much of the world. Th3 Irish passport may well be the best in the world.

    By not renewing your UK passport, you keep your dual citizenship, so can benefit from UK consular assistance if stuck in Kharkiv etc.
    I wonder - if you don't renew your passport, can you still get your citizenship revoked by the home secretary?
  • Betting Post?





  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633

    Judging by the description that BBC's Moscow journo is giving of Russian state media messaging on Ukr, the Young Labour press and twitter messages seem identical.

    NATO aggression. US expansionism, Russians as victims etc etc.

    Uncanny...

    Some people struggle to keep up. Russia is not the USSR, and Putin is an old fashioned right wing despot in the style of the Tsar. The American far right has noticed, hence Tucker Carlson etc being Putin apologists.
  • Leon said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    I dunno, you could use it just once more and eff off somewhere else, with your silly Irish flag, and stop yer endless whining about Britain on here
    You are a fine one to talk about whining :D
    Did you hear him when he had a wee man cold? Jeepers creepers.
  • Marco Rubio says after Ukraine briefing that if the U.S. imposes sanctions, Putin likely will respond w a cyber or other attack. 'No one has ever waged a cyber conflict. These things could rapidly escalate into something far more dangerous. So this is a very tense moment'

    https://twitter.com/LauraLitvan/status/1493344689025650692?s=20&t=zDeiA-TtyBFszDhbFJ6p8g
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    Not much point. With an Irish passport you can live and vote here, the EU and have visa free travel to much of the world. Th3 Irish passport may well be the best in the world.

    By not renewing your UK passport, you keep your dual citizenship, so can benefit from UK consular assistance if stuck in Kharkiv etc.
    I wonder - if you don't renew your passport, can you still get your citizenship revoked by the home secretary?
    Under the new laws Priti can dispose of your rights as a British citizen whether you have a passport or not, or even if she has cause to believe that you are eligible for a foreign one. A single Jewish grandparent for example.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990

    Betting Post?





    Why @PennyMordaunt could be the outsider to watch in any Tory leadership contest.
    A real Brexiteer? ✅
    Cabinet experience? ✅
    Defence experience? ✅
    One Nation Tory? ✅

    Tonight's #WaughOnPolitics is in your inbox

    https://inews.co.uk/opinion/penny-mordaunt-tory-leadership-candidates-replace-boris-johnson-1459863
  • Betting Post?





    She looks OK :)
  • Foxy said:

    pigeon said:

    Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:

    People aged 65 and over

    1993

    own outright: 55.7%
    own with mortgage: 5.8%
    private rental sector: 6.3%
    social rental sector: 32.2%

    2017

    own outright: 74.2%
    own with mortgage: 4.4%
    private rental sector: 5.6%
    social rental sector: 15.8%

    People aged 16 to 64

    1993

    own outright: 14.0%
    own with mortgage: 56.2%
    private rental sector: 10.8%
    social rental sector: 19.0%

    2017

    own outright: 17.4%
    own with mortgage: 40.0%
    private rental sector: 25.2%
    social rental sector: 17.5%

    In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.

    Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglonger/changesinhousingtenureovertime#:~:text=Main points,two-thirds 20 years earlier.

    + Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.

    + Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.

    + People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.

    + Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.

    + Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.

    + The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.


    An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.

    Great Post. Enough to develop a header from.
    There was a Robert Colville piece in the Sunday Times making this point. Without lots of homeowners, the Conservative Party is ... well, you can insert your colourful analogy anywhere you like, which is what will happen to the Conservatives if they're not careful. Because the endpoint of current trends is a smallish number of landlords owning all the houses and everyone else paying rent.

    On the other hand, resetting the UK property market is a world of short-term pain, for both the public and the politicians in charge at the time. So it won't happen.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    Not much point. With an Irish passport you can live and vote here, the EU and have visa free travel to much of the world. Th3 Irish passport may well be the best in the world.

    By not renewing your UK passport, you keep your dual citizenship, so can benefit from UK consular assistance if stuck in Kharkiv etc.
    I wonder - if you don't renew your passport, can you still get your citizenship revoked by the home secretary?
    Under the new laws Priti can dispose of your rights as a British citizen whether you have a passport or not, or even if she has cause to believe that you are eligible for a foreign one. A single Jewish grandparent for example.
    Yes, they have the right to - and this isn't actually a new thing. But I was thinking - if you don't have a British passport, how can they actually remove your rights of citizenship?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    Foxy said:

    pigeon said:

    Some data from the ONS, concerning changes in housing tenure over time in England:

    People aged 65 and over

    1993

    own outright: 55.7%
    own with mortgage: 5.8%
    private rental sector: 6.3%
    social rental sector: 32.2%

    2017

    own outright: 74.2%
    own with mortgage: 4.4%
    private rental sector: 5.6%
    social rental sector: 15.8%

    People aged 16 to 64

    1993

    own outright: 14.0%
    own with mortgage: 56.2%
    private rental sector: 10.8%
    social rental sector: 19.0%

    2017

    own outright: 17.4%
    own with mortgage: 40.0%
    private rental sector: 25.2%
    social rental sector: 17.5%

    In crude terms, since the Nineties owner-occupancy amongst pensioners has risen by about 20% and social rented occupancy has correspondingly declined; owner-occupancy amongst everyone else has fallen by about 15% and renting from private landlords has correspondingly risen.

    Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglonger/changesinhousingtenureovertime#:~:text=Main points,two-thirds 20 years earlier.

    + Almost three-quarters of people aged 65 years and over in England own their home outright.

    + Younger people are less likely to own their own home than in the past and more likely to be renting. Half of people in their mid-30s to mid-40s had a mortgage in 2017, compared with two-thirds 20 years earlier.

    + People in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. A third of this age group were renting from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in 1997.

    + Increases in the private rental sector have been seen for all age groups apart from the very oldest, with the increase particularly pronounced in mid-life. People aged 35 to 44 years were almost three and a half times more likely to be renting in 2017 than in 1993.

    + Renting from a private landlord is most common at younger ages and decreases with age as people take out mortgages and/or receive inheritances. But for any given age, people are far more likely to be renting privately today than 10 or 20 years ago. Almost a third (28%) of people aged 35 to 44 years rented from a private landlord in 2017, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (9%) in 1997.

    + The percentage owning with a mortgage peaks in middle age, and then declines at older ages as people finish paying off their mortgages and own their homes outright. But for almost any age, it is less common to own with a mortgage than 10 or 20 years ago. Half (50%) of people aged 35 to 44 had a mortgage in 2017, compared with more than two-thirds (68%) in 1997.


    An ageing population + concentration of wealth in the hands of the elderly = gerontocracy. That's the political reality of modern Britain.

    Great Post. Enough to develop a header from.
    That's kind of you. The great age divide is certainly vastly more important than the endless spats people keep having over Brexit, which - arguments about trade technicalities and Northern Ireland aside - is, fundamentally, a thing of the past.

    Couple the data above with the fact that an overall majority of the electorate (accounting for propensity to bother to turn out to vote) is over 55, and you can well appreciate why the Tory vote remains so resilient.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,792

    Betting Post?





    She looks OK :)
    Is that Penny?
    Her star hasn't exactly shone these last two years. But I don't thi k she's put a foot wrong either.
  • MOSCOW — The tone of the crisis over Ukraine shifted Monday as Russia’s top diplomat endorsed more talks to resolve its standoff with the West, and Ukrainian officials hinted at offering concessions to avert war — even as Russian warships massed off Ukraine’s Black Sea coast and Russian ground troops appeared poised to strike.

    In stage-managed, televised meetings, the Kremlin sent its strongest signals yet that it would seek further negotiations with the West rather than launch immediate military action.

    NY Times
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    Cookie said:

    Betting Post?





    She looks OK :)
    Is that Penny?
    Her star hasn't exactly shone these last two years. But I don't thi k she's put a foot wrong either.
    She was purged in the first Johnson reshuffle, but has crept back in, and I think is a strong candidate. Always Brexit but not tied too closely to Johnson. Tories are suckers for looking for another Maggie, the curse of being a Tory female, but of benefit when getting selected.
  • Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Betting Post?





    She looks OK :)
    Is that Penny?
    Her star hasn't exactly shone these last two years. But I don't thi k she's put a foot wrong either.
    She was purged in the first Johnson reshuffle, but has crept back in, and I think is a strong candidate. Always Brexit but not tied too closely to Johnson. Tories are suckers for looking for another Maggie, the curse of being a Tory female, but of benefit when getting selected.
    The Iron-clad Lady
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839

    There was a Robert Colville piece in the Sunday Times making this point. Without lots of homeowners, the Conservative Party is ... well, you can insert your colourful analogy anywhere you like, which is what will happen to the Conservatives if they're not careful. Because the endpoint of current trends is a smallish number of landlords owning all the houses and everyone else paying rent.

    On the other hand, resetting the UK property market is a world of short-term pain, for both the public and the politicians in charge at the time. So it won't happen.

    Precisely. There is no way to raise the money needed to cover the enormous cost of caring for the elderly without immiserating the young that doesn't involve a major shift in taxation from earned incomes to assets, and in particular property: hikes in capital gains tax, a major expansion of inheritance tax, and most likely some kind of system of land value taxes as well.

    This would result in the most colossal temper tantrum from both the elderly and their heirs - impossible for the Conservatives to contemplate and very difficult for Labour as well. So, taxes on the working age population (which will steadily shrink as more of it staggers over the finishing line to retirement, and birth rates continue to decline because the young can't afford to reproduce) will get heavier and heavier.

    Two things to look out for in coming years: the health and social care levy, having now been established, won't stay at 1.25% for very long; and plans to increase the retirement age more steeply and more rapidly.

    I'm currently 45 and, being fortunate enough still to have some disposable income, am saving hand over fist so I (hopefully) won't have to work until I drop down dead. I do not expect to qualify for the state pension this side of my 70th birthday.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    Labour needs a decent swing at the Erdington by-election. Single figures would be worrying for the party.
  • Cookie said:

    Betting Post?





    She looks OK :)
    Is that Penny?
    Her star hasn't exactly shone these last two years. But I don't thi k she's put a foot wrong either.
    She has kept a low profile, is sensible and is a good outside bet if there is a leadership election. However she is an outside chance. DYOR
  • Interesting - an RAF C17 has just flown from Kiev to Lviv:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zz175#2ad2075f

    Moving British Embassy staff?
  • "We will resist. Ukraine is not Afghanistan. We are united now against the common enemy and that is Russian Federation"

    Ukr MP to Newsnight.
  • Scott_xP said:

    How many more laws do they plan to break?

    🔴Priti Patel is to introduce a new law that will prevent Sadiq Khan from summarily sacking or suspending the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/14/priti-patel-strip-power-mayors-hire-fire-police-chiefs-will/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1644872801-2

    How is it breaking a law when a new law is passed through the HOC

    Indeed there is some sense in this as the Met Commissioner has a far wider role than just London policing
    BigG. do you not see the parallels here between Johnson and Trump? An act looking particularly seedy in the light of Johnson currently being investigated by the Met police.
    Certainly not on this

    There are very good reasons for the Home Secretary of the day to appoint the Met Commissioner
  • Cookie said:

    Betting Post?





    She looks OK :)
    Is that Penny?
    Her star hasn't exactly shone these last two years. But I don't thi k she's put a foot wrong either.
    She has kept a low profile, is sensible and is a good outside bet if there is a leadership election. However she is an outside chance. DYOR
    My favourite fact about her is she is a descendant of Harriet Mordaunt who was the subject of one of the most sensational divorce cases of the Victorian era. It ended up dragging the Prince of Wales into the dock as he was strongly suspected as her lover.b

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Mordaunt
  • Andy_JS said:

    Labour needs a decent swing at the Erdington by-election. Single figures would be worrying for the party.

    I think a lot of CON will stay at home. However quite a few LAB might go to Nellist who is standing for TUSC. Not sure how much enthusiasm there will be for Starmer. So LAB to win comfortably but not much swing, so not a lot for LAB to shout about. Again DYOR I have no local knowledge.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,032
    edited February 2022

    I have just noticed that my UK passport has expired.

    I wonder if I should bother renewing it? It is not like it is much use these days.

    The South Shetland Islands beckon!
    My wife and I have a welcoming certificate from South Georgia and the Sourh Shetland Islands
  • Redfield & Wilton:

    Lab 38%
    Con 33%
    LD 11%
    Grn 6%
    Ref 5%

  • One thing that is notable is that it appears Russian units in Belarus have been heading back to Russia. The Allied Resolve exercise should be in midswing, so this could indicate some of these forces are being moved to staging areas in Russia near the border with Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1493355606467657731?s=20&t=zDeiA-TtyBFszDhbFJ6p8g
This discussion has been closed.