New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
Justifiable seems a bit of a weird word to use for some of these things. In what sense is homosexuality something that needs to be justified? The form of the question itself seems to demonstrate quite how far attitudes have changed.
Describing homosexuality as an "action" is bizarre. Unless the graph uses different wording to the question, which is always possible.
I think most people would assume the big change in attitudes was in the period 1997-2010, not 2010-present, so the findings are certainly interesting.
I wouldn't assume that.
In 2010 it was still illegal for gays to get married, we still had campaigns for marriage equality and many people still vehemently opposed equal marriage. Even a few years after 2010, I recall getting into a rather nasty argument that turned heated on this very site with a fellow Tory (since we were both Tories at the time) on the subject.
Fast forward a decade and the idea that gays shouldn't be able to get married and be treated equally is accepted by almost all now as utterly absurd. Even people who a decade ago would oppose it now openly admit that they've seen how happy some of their friends or family are and have changed their mind.
Its a remarkable change for the better in the past generation.
@Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.
There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.
Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.
Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.
On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.
In Suburban Leicester, 2 patients, both lifelong Tory voters, spontaneously told me last week that they won't be voting Tory next time. I don't talk politics with patients as it isn't professional, so it truly was spontaneous.
I think Tories sub 200 seats, possibly sub 150. I don't think Sunak can turn it around.
Every seat in Leicester is Labour anyway. Claudia Webbe being an ex Labour Independent
Suburban Leicester might be in one of the surrounding seats, like Charnwood, or Harborough. The seats surrounding Leicester are:
Charnwood, Tory majority of 22,397 Rutland and Melton, Tory majority of 26,294 Harborough, Tory majority of 17,278 South Leicestershire, Tory majority of 24,004
Election Calculus predicts the Tories would be reduced to less than 175 seats if they lose seats like Harborough. Well below a hundred if Rutland and Melton falls. No idea how the boundary review is set to shake those up though.
Rutland certainly isn't Leicester, it isn't even in Leicestershire
Nevertheless, the constituency of Rutland and Melton borders one of the Leicester city seats and so includes areas that might be described as suburban Leicester.
Not for much longer. It will be (plus PPC selected):
Rutland, Stamford and the Stamford and Harborough Villages - Alicia Kearns Melton & Syston - Ed Argar
Melton and Syston sounds like something that would contain a lot more 'suburban Leicester' type voters than Melton and Rutland.
Yep it represents a North East corridor out from Leicester and Syston is between Melton and Leicester in that corridor.
Rail route from Syston North to Syston East junctions is rare track, as listed in PSUL. I did it back in 2015, albeit southbound only
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Wrong. Read the small print around the graph.
Yes, the graph measures the percentage who think it is justifiable or not.
So only a minority of British voters still think abortion or casual sex are justifiable
No, that graph tells you that on a scale of 1-10 (where 1=never justifiable, and 10=always justifiable) 48% chose 8-10 for abortion. It seems almost certain that a majority chose 6-10 (i.e. closer to always justifiable than never justifiable).
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Obviously it's a horrible subject, with no decent solutions except much better governments in large parts of the world, covering 2 or 3 billion people, and world peace.
Removal to France or other EU/EU applicant countries is not the same as removal to Syria or Afghanistan. And if it always occurred when people had come from a safe country then, as is the plan, the incentive to try to come would cease.
This of course should go along with capacity to apply from those countries for residence in the UK.
BTW does Labour have a policy? This is not going to be easy for anyone, including Labour.
The problem though is that even that policy is a form of denial. Followed through to its logical conclusion it would imply a large increase in the number of refugees receiving refuge in Britain. The UN reckons there are about 32.5 million refugees. Britain's "fair share" on a per capita basis would be what, about 1-in-30, depending on which countries you reckoned were safe enough to provide refuge to refugees. So it would mean providing refuge for 1 million refugees in Britain. That's never going to happen, and so the transit countries are never going to agree to accepting the return of refugees who travel illegally.
One of the reasons this issue is so insoluble in our politics is that neither side is willing or able to do something unpleasant to solve it.
In order for the Right to reduce the number of "genuine" refugees to a low enough number they are willing to accept (maybe, no more than 10,000 a year?) they would have to tighten the definition of a "genuine" refugee so tightly that it would be rejected as inhumane by a majority of the public. The Left is unwilling to accept that the numbers of people who would qualify as refugees under the present generally accepted definition is so large that it would require a war-time scale of response to provide for the huddled masses, and thereby incur a cost that the majority of the public is unwilling to pay.
So, as a country, in common with other Western countries, we are in a situation where we have made a promise that we are unwilling to keep. The emphasis on the legality of the mode of transport used by refugees on their way here is then typical of the displacement activity that results from refusing to engage with the core difficulty of the situation.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Wrong. Read the small print around the graph.
Yes, the graph measures the percentage who think it is justifiable or not.
So only a minority of British voters still think abortion or casual sex are justifiable
No, that graph tells you that on a scale of 1-10 (where 1=never justifiable, and 10=always justifiable) 48% chose 8-10 for abortion. It seems almost certain that a majority chose 6-10 (i.e. closer to always justifiable than never justifiable).
Kind of a stupid question though.
So 52% chose 0-7 on abortion, again far higher than I would have expected in the UK of 2023
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Obviously it's a horrible subject, with no decent solutions except much better governments in large parts of the world, covering 2 or 3 billion people, and world peace.
Removal to France or other EU/EU applicant countries is not the same as removal to Syria or Afghanistan. And if it always occurred when people had come from a safe country then, as is the plan, the incentive to try to come would cease.
This of course should go along with capacity to apply from those countries for residence in the UK.
BTW does Labour have a policy? This is not going to be easy for anyone, including Labour.
Well, it would be strange for them to choose this topic for their first policy.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Wrong. Read the small print around the graph.
Yes, the graph measures the percentage who think it is justifiable or not.
So only a minority of British voters still think abortion or casual sex are justifiable
No, that graph tells you that on a scale of 1-10 (where 1=never justifiable, and 10=always justifiable) 48% chose 8-10 for abortion. It seems almost certain that a majority chose 6-10 (i.e. closer to always justifiable than never justifiable).
Kind of a stupid question though.
So 52% chose 0-7 on abortion, again far higher than I would have expected in the UK of 2023
I think there are a lot of people for whom access to safe legal abortion is seen very much as the lesser of two evils rather than a great positive thing. I'd certainly put myself in that category. I don't celebrate any abortion but it's the woman's right to choose and a better outcome than a child being raised in a family that can't afford it or the mother bleeding to death in some backroom clinic.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Really. I usually zone out from the ‘everything is racist’ arguments one sees from time to time but I’d be interested to know why this is the case?
The younger the age group, the more diverse. The younger the age group, the more they are fucked over by the housing crisis.
This means that the housing crisis fucks over people from ethnic groups more than white people.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
So you carp about other people making predictions, but are too cowardly and/or stupid to make your own predictions?
"Know only that it is complete bollocks"
Why? What do you base that on, if you 'have absolutely no idea' what is going to happen?
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
The other point I've mentioned previously is to stop comparing with 2019.
In fact Mike is guilty of having it both ways with this because he says that 2019 was mostly because of Corbyn's unelectable toxicity whilst at the same time using 2019 as the benchmark.
2019 was a one-off because of Corbyn and because of 'Get Brexit Done', which has now become laughable.
If you are obsessed by swing precedence than at least use the much more realistic 2017 election.
Mike is “guilty” of a lot of things, but one needs to understand his core task these days: making stunningly predictable future events seem knife-edge, in order to breathe some life into dormant political betting markets. The one thing he is not guilty of is poor marketing.
Ever seen political parties talk down their chances of winning uber safe by elections? Hilarity.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
Justifiable seems a bit of a weird word to use for some of these things. In what sense is homosexuality something that needs to be justified? The form of the question itself seems to demonstrate quite how far attitudes have changed.
Describing homosexuality as an "action" is bizarre. Unless the graph uses different wording to the question, which is always possible.
I think most people would assume the big change in attitudes was in the period 1997-2010, not 2010-present, so the findings are certainly interesting.
It's listed as 'Homosexuality'
'Please tell me for each of the following actions whether you think it can always be justified, never be justified, or something in between, using this card. (Read out and code one answer for each statement):
Q177 Claiming government benefits to which you are not entitled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q178 Avoiding a fare on public transport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q179 Stealing property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q180 Cheating on taxes if you have a chance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q181 Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q182 Homosexuality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q183 Prostitution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q184 Abortion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q185 Divorce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q186 Sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q187 Suicide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q188 Euthanasia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q189 For a man to beat his wife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q190 Parents beating children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q191 Violence against other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q192 Terrorism as a political, ideological or religious mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q193 Having casual sex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q194 Political violence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q195 Death penalty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10'
It's a pretty disturbing list, framing 'Homosexuality' as something immoral, like stealing or a man beating his wife. Didn't we have a header about dodgy polling the other day? This is a good example.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
The housing crisis comes down to a number if factors
- Religious belief that development is bad - A rising population - Hating NIMBYs, but that development across the road is evil because {reasons} - Most development is massive estates of houses that cause local house price dips as they are built - The said estates are often ghastly. - The only person in the country who seems to try and understand the kind of development people actually want has a servant whose specified job is putting the toothpaste on his toothbrush in the morning.
So the choices are often either no houses or a vast mass of shitboxes with no shops or amenities associated with them.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
You are talking to a man who regularly assigns 100% of DKs and WNVs to his own column.
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Obviously it's a horrible subject, with no decent solutions except much better governments in large parts of the world, covering 2 or 3 billion people, and world peace.
Removal to France or other EU/EU applicant countries is not the same as removal to Syria or Afghanistan. And if it always occurred when people had come from a safe country then, as is the plan, the incentive to try to come would cease.
This of course should go along with capacity to apply from those countries for residence in the UK.
BTW does Labour have a policy? This is not going to be easy for anyone, including Labour.
The problem though is that even that policy is a form of denial. Followed through to its logical conclusion it would imply a large increase in the number of refugees receiving refuge in Britain. The UN reckons there are about 32.5 million refugees. Britain's "fair share" on a per capita basis would be what, about 1-in-30, depending on which countries you reckoned were safe enough to provide refuge to refugees. So it would mean providing refuge for 1 million refugees in Britain. That's never going to happen, and so the transit countries are never going to agree to accepting the return of refugees who travel illegally.
One of the reasons this issue is so insoluble in our politics is that neither side is willing or able to do something unpleasant to solve it.
In order for the Right to reduce the number of "genuine" refugees to a low enough number they are willing to accept (maybe, no more than 10,000 a year?) they would have to tighten the definition of a "genuine" refugee so tightly that it would be rejected as inhumane by a majority of the public. The Left is unwilling to accept that the numbers of people who would qualify as refugees under the present generally accepted definition is so large that it would require a war-time scale of response to provide for the huddled masses, and thereby incur a cost that the majority of the public is unwilling to pay.
So, as a country, in common with other Western countries, we are in a situation where we have made a promise that we are unwilling to keep. The emphasis on the legality of the mode of transport used by refugees on their way here is then typical of the displacement activity that results from refusing to engage with the core difficulty of the situation.
"The UN reckons there are about 32.5 million refugees. Britain's "fair share" on a per capita basis would be what, about 1-in-30, depending on which countries you reckoned were safe enough to provide refuge to refugees"
I am not sure what Britain's "fair share" is, but I think it is interesting to ask how "fair share" should be defined.
I doubt it should be "per capita".
It should be done on the basis of "sustainability". And I guess by that vague term, I mean that it is clear that are large areas of Europe and North America that are safe, prosperous, and relatively empty of population, so they could support many more people.
Per capita sends more people to areas that are already heavily populated, so I don't think it is the right measure.
For example, it is very obvious that large parts of the US -- a very empty country by Western European standards -- could benefit and could sustain a greater population than currently.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
The housing crisis comes down to a number if factors
- Religious belief that development is bad - A rising population - Hating NIMBYs, but that development across the road is evil because {reasons} - Most development is massive estates of houses that cause local house price dips as they are built - The said estates are often ghastly. - The only person in the country who seems to try and understand the kind of development people actually want has a servant whose specified job is putting the toothpaste on his toothbrush in the morning.
So the choices are often either no houses or a vast mass of shitboxes with no shops or amenities associated with them.
The birth rate in the UK is now well under replacement level, only immigration is increasing the population
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
Its not a fair point since labour shortages aren't caused by a shortage of people and can't be solved by immigration, any more than unemployment is caused by too many people and immigrants "stealing jobs".
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply. Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
Justifiable seems a bit of a weird word to use for some of these things. In what sense is homosexuality something that needs to be justified? The form of the question itself seems to demonstrate quite how far attitudes have changed.
Describing homosexuality as an "action" is bizarre. Unless the graph uses different wording to the question, which is always possible.
I think most people would assume the big change in attitudes was in the period 1997-2010, not 2010-present, so the findings are certainly interesting.
It's listed as 'Homosexuality'
'Please tell me for each of the following actions whether you think it can always be justified, never be justified, or something in between, using this card. (Read out and code one answer for each statement):
Q177 Claiming government benefits to which you are not entitled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q178 Avoiding a fare on public transport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q179 Stealing property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q180 Cheating on taxes if you have a chance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q181 Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q182 Homosexuality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q183 Prostitution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q184 Abortion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q185 Divorce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q186 Sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q187 Suicide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q188 Euthanasia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q189 For a man to beat his wife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q190 Parents beating children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q191 Violence against other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q192 Terrorism as a political, ideological or religious mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q193 Having casual sex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q194 Political violence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q195 Death penalty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10'
It's a pretty disturbing list, framing 'Homosexuality' as something immoral, like stealing or a man beating his wife. Didn't we have a header about dodgy polling the other day? This is a good example.
Muslims, evangelical Christians, conservative Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Jews would all see active homosexuality ie having sexual relations with someone of the same gender, as sinful.
Being of homosexual inclination but celibate would not be sinful for them however
The other point I've mentioned previously is to stop comparing with 2019.
In fact Mike is guilty of having it both ways with this because he says that 2019 was mostly because of Corbyn's unelectable toxicity whilst at the same time using 2019 as the benchmark.
2019 was a one-off because of Corbyn and because of 'Get Brexit Done', which has now become laughable.
If you are obsessed by swing precedence than at least use the much more realistic 2017 election.
Mike is “guilty” of a lot of things, but one needs to understand his core task these days: making stunningly predictable future events seem knife-edge, in order to breathe some life into dormant political betting markets. The one thing he is not guilty of is poor marketing.
Ever seen political parties talk down their chances of winning uber safe by elections? Hilarity.
They all do it: gotta GOTV.
Sure. A large part of elections is logistics and getting out the vote.
If there weren't boundary changes then referring back to 2017 might be more sensible.
But there are. And nobody's going to be compiling notional 2017 results.
Consequently parties will be basing their logistics strategy on 2019 notional results. And when you're starting from so far back - as Cameron was in 2010 - logistics is very difficult. It's Sir Keir's biggest problem right now. I wonder if his party realises it.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
We have a shortage of people prepared to work shit jobs for shit hours and shit pay.
Reminds me of the comments among the Peruvian elite about the people doing Guano digging in the 19th cent.
The lazy scum wanted enough money to feed their families or some such. So they imported Japanese labour as pretty much slave labour to dig the literal shit.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
Non-COVID excess deaths now below 100. Feels like Christmas was a final big bang for the reaper picking off the low-hanging fruit that had dodged him in 2020-21 due to lockdown.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
Justifiable seems a bit of a weird word to use for some of these things. In what sense is homosexuality something that needs to be justified? The form of the question itself seems to demonstrate quite how far attitudes have changed.
If memory serves some religions take ths view that being gay is technically ok, but doing gay things is not, which is the sort of creative thinking which demonstrates the changes in attitude that have taken place whilst still retaining some of the 'justifiable' worldview.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
Its not a fair point since labour shortages aren't caused by a shortage of people and can't be solved by immigration, any more than unemployment is caused by too many people and immigrants "stealing jobs".
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply. Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
You forgot productivity. We have, in some areas gone backwards.
A husband of a friend, from Morocco, quit his job running a factory making airline meals at Heathrow. He told me he left Morocco to get away from that kind of work - people instead of machines, a crappy shed full of people boiling big vats of stuff, basically.
When stuff broke it was replaced with people quite often - literally some bloke stirring a bit pot, rather than a mechanical stirring machine.
He described it as Dickensian. Given he’d done a Masters in English Lit before coming to this country…
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
The other point I've mentioned previously is to stop comparing with 2019.
In fact Mike is guilty of having it both ways with this because he says that 2019 was mostly because of Corbyn's unelectable toxicity whilst at the same time using 2019 as the benchmark.
2019 was a one-off because of Corbyn and because of 'Get Brexit Done', which has now become laughable.
If you are obsessed by swing precedence than at least use the much more realistic 2017 election.
Mike is “guilty” of a lot of things, but one needs to understand his core task these days: making stunningly predictable future events seem knife-edge, in order to breathe some life into dormant political betting markets. The one thing he is not guilty of is poor marketing.
Ever seen political parties talk down their chances of winning uber safe by elections? Hilarity.
They all do it: gotta GOTV.
I honestly don't think that works, much as I question the efficacy of a lot of the pavement pounding they do which a party cannot admit as the members need to feel useful.
I mean, if someone is engaged enough to be persuaded to vote if they were not already definitely going to, they are probably on the ball enough to know the Tories are not winning a by election in Bootle.
Non-COVID excess deaths now below 100. Feels like Christmas was a final big bang for the reaper picking off the low-hanging fruit that had dodged him in 2020-21 due to lockdown.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
It's also worth bearing in mind that the 5-year average death rate has itself risen due to the excess deaths resulting from the series of COVID waves over the last few years.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
One step from blaming younger people for buying too many lattes and thats why they cannot buy a house.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
Its not a fair point since labour shortages aren't caused by a shortage of people and can't be solved by immigration, any more than unemployment is caused by too many people and immigrants "stealing jobs".
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply. Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
You forgot productivity. We have, in some areas gone backwards.
A husband of a friend, from Morocco, quit his job running a factory making airline meals at Heathrow. He told me he left Morocco to get away from that kind of work - people instead of machines, a crappy shed full of people boiling big vats of stuff, basically.
When stuff broke it was replaced with people quite often - literally some bloke stirring a bit pot, rather than a mechanical stirring machine.
He described it as Dickensian. Given he’d done a Masters in English Lit before coming to this country…
There's also the problem of lag. While, theoretically, there should be enough people to do any job if the pay is sufficient, in practice society needs time to adjust to change. You're not going to suddenly entice a large number of aspiring British youngsters into a life of menial work no matter what the pay.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
Its not a fair point since labour shortages aren't caused by a shortage of people and can't be solved by immigration, any more than unemployment is caused by too many people and immigrants "stealing jobs".
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply. Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
You forgot productivity. We have, in some areas gone backwards.
A husband of a friend, from Morocco, quit his job running a factory making airline meals at Heathrow. He told me he left Morocco to get away from that kind of work - people instead of machines, a crappy shed full of people boiling big vats of stuff, basically.
When stuff broke it was replaced with people quite often - literally some bloke stirring a bit pot, rather than a mechanical stirring machine.
He described it as Dickensian. Given he’d done a Masters in English Lit before coming to this country…
There's also the problem of lag. While, theoretically, there should be enough people to do any job if the pay is sufficient, in practice society needs time to adjust to change. You're not going to suddenly entice a large number of aspiring British youngsters into a life of menial work no matter what the pay.
You could entice them into better paying jobs that involve maintaining/working with the machines that do the menial jobs.
That requires investment, though. Real investment.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
Given the average age of first marriage and first child is now nearer 35 than 25 in the UK most people will happily rent throughout their 20s now and only seek to buy property and start a family in their 30s.
Women now want to go to university and have careers, most don't want to leave school and become mothers immediately
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Obviously it's a horrible subject, with no decent solutions except much better governments in large parts of the world, covering 2 or 3 billion people, and world peace.
Removal to France or other EU/EU applicant countries is not the same as removal to Syria or Afghanistan. And if it always occurred when people had come from a safe country then, as is the plan, the incentive to try to come would cease.
This of course should go along with capacity to apply from those countries for residence in the UK.
BTW does Labour have a policy? This is not going to be easy for anyone, including Labour.
The problem though is that even that policy is a form of denial. Followed through to its logical conclusion it would imply a large increase in the number of refugees receiving refuge in Britain. The UN reckons there are about 32.5 million refugees. Britain's "fair share" on a per capita basis would be what, about 1-in-30, depending on which countries you reckoned were safe enough to provide refuge to refugees. So it would mean providing refuge for 1 million refugees in Britain. That's never going to happen, and so the transit countries are never going to agree to accepting the return of refugees who travel illegally.
One of the reasons this issue is so insoluble in our politics is that neither side is willing or able to do something unpleasant to solve it.
In order for the Right to reduce the number of "genuine" refugees to a low enough number they are willing to accept (maybe, no more than 10,000 a year?) they would have to tighten the definition of a "genuine" refugee so tightly that it would be rejected as inhumane by a majority of the public. The Left is unwilling to accept that the numbers of people who would qualify as refugees under the present generally accepted definition is so large that it would require a war-time scale of response to provide for the huddled masses, and thereby incur a cost that the majority of the public is unwilling to pay.
So, as a country, in common with other Western countries, we are in a situation where we have made a promise that we are unwilling to keep. The emphasis on the legality of the mode of transport used by refugees on their way here is then typical of the displacement activity that results from refusing to engage with the core difficulty of the situation.
"The UN reckons there are about 32.5 million refugees. Britain's "fair share" on a per capita basis would be what, about 1-in-30, depending on which countries you reckoned were safe enough to provide refuge to refugees"
I am not sure what Britain's "fair share" is, but I think it is interesting to ask how "fair share" should be defined.
I doubt it should be "per capita".
It should be done on the basis of "sustainability". And I guess by that vague term, I mean that it is clear that are large areas of Europe and North America that are safe, prosperous, and relatively empty of population, so they could support many more people.
Per capita sends more people to areas that are already heavily populated, so I don't think it is the right measure.
For example, it is very obvious that large parts of the US -- a very empty country by Western European standards -- could benefit and could sustain a greater population than currently.
That's a fair point. You might also look at how wealthy a country was, and apportion refugees by the ability to pay to look after them, so by GDP. The point being that the vast majority of such ways of finding such a number will lead to more refugees reaching Britain than through the current illegal routes, because Britain's relative remoteness means that it takes a disproportionately low number at present.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
It can only be because the migrants have heard about the raft of Brexit benefits we're enjoying - high wages, job abundance, cheap import of goods from around the globe, frictionless trade and the annihilation of bureaucracy - and have decided they need to share in the bounty. There can be no other explanation.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
Absolutle bollocks. You all predict that this advance will run out of steam or that front is pushing forward or the other flanking move is likely to succeed.
You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable. You have no idea about it aside from the odd youtube clip, online body/weapons count website, and some random General opining on R4.
You simply don't know.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
That is not me name calling, it is me being "realistic", which, like "sceptic", I hadn't realised was now an insult.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
Its not a fair point since labour shortages aren't caused by a shortage of people and can't be solved by immigration, any more than unemployment is caused by too many people and immigrants "stealing jobs".
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply. Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
You forgot productivity. We have, in some areas gone backwards.
A husband of a friend, from Morocco, quit his job running a factory making airline meals at Heathrow. He told me he left Morocco to get away from that kind of work - people instead of machines, a crappy shed full of people boiling big vats of stuff, basically.
When stuff broke it was replaced with people quite often - literally some bloke stirring a bit pot, rather than a mechanical stirring machine.
He described it as Dickensian. Given he’d done a Masters in English Lit before coming to this country…
There's also the problem of lag. While, theoretically, there should be enough people to do any job if the pay is sufficient, in practice society needs time to adjust to change. You're not going to suddenly entice a large number of aspiring British youngsters into a life of menial work no matter what the pay.
You could entice them into better paying jobs that involve maintaining/working with the machines that do the menial jobs.
That requires investment, though. Real investment.
To a certain extent. There are some roles, such as those in social care, that are difficult to mechanise.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
Its not a fair point since labour shortages aren't caused by a shortage of people and can't be solved by immigration, any more than unemployment is caused by too many people and immigrants "stealing jobs".
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply. Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
Your cod economics exposed in one dumb post Barty.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
When we bought our first home in 1965 it was a struggle so much so that we could not afford the option of central heating offered by the builder at just £250
We installed it 3 years later and the idea we had it easy is simply not our experience though having a Scot as a wife helped as she was very thrifty, bless her
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
Whilst it is sometimes justifiable we should also leave enough time for work, eating and sleep too.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
Is it ? How many married people would agree with the proposition that it's always justifiable, for instance ?
Answering no to that proposition doesn't make them illiberal.
The survey lumps together a load of different questions of morality which aren't readily comparable (unless you're a hardline reactionary, or an extreme libertarian).
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
Indeed. We are the nearest, safest English-speaking country. And that never gets addressed precisely because it's not a "problem to solve" for the government!
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
Given the average age of first marriage and first child is now nearer 35 than 25 in the UK most people will happily rent throughout their 20s now and only seek to buy property and start a family in their 30s.
Women now want to go to university and have careers, most don't want to leave school and become mothers immediately
They will. But they will do so because they have no other option. I have never "happily" rented.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
Given the average age of first marriage and first child is now nearer 35 than 25 in the UK most people will happily rent throughout their 20s now and only seek to buy property and start a family in their 30s.
Women now want to go to university and have careers, most don't want to leave school and become mothers immediately
And this creates the demographics that mean we need immigration the older generation do not want....and a tax burden the younger generation do not want.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
Whilst it is sometimes justifiable we should also leave enough time for work, eating and sleep too.
Depends on your interpretation of the question too.
I can think of lots of times when casual sex is unjustifiable: when one party doesn't consent or is under age, when the parties are closely related, when one party is vulnerable, etc. etc.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
Plus lots of networks from different nations to plug into, and quite a lot of grey economy, if we're honest.
So lots of factors that we wouldn't really want to change.
And one other thought. Suppose the "first safe country" rule-that-isn't were true. That would leave us, France and so on in splendid isolation, whilst utterly screwing countries bordering disaster areas.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
It has been addressed repeatedly.
In short, people who are forced from their own country tend to seek refuge in places where they feel they are likely to be able to have a chance of making a decent living. These are typically places where they: already have contacts, know something of the culture, can speak the language and have a chance of employment. It's really not rocket science. It's exactly what you or I would do if forced to leave the UK.
It's worth noting that many European countries take more refugees than we do, both absolutely and relative to their size.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
Absolutle bollocks. You all predict that this advance will run out of steam or that front is pushing forward or the other flanking move is likely to succeed.
You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable. You have no idea about it aside from the odd youtube clip, online body/weapons count website, and some random General opining on R4.
You simply don't know.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
That is not me name calling, it is me being "realistic", which, like "sceptic", I hadn't realised was now an insult.
"You all predict that this advance will run out of steam"
What "advance", ffs ? Russia's 'advance' is like General Melchett examining the ground captured - in one-to-one scale. There's a massive, bloody, attritional battle going on. It's not like the run for Kyiv last February, or Kharkiv last autumn.
"You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable."
So, please enlighten us, oh wise one. Give us the pearls of your wisdom. No?
As I've said passim, there is a possibility that Russia has stored up an armoured fist to make another advance - and I said I feared it on the run-up to the anniversary. But IMV - and it is just a view - that is becoming increasingly unlikely, given what we've seen. But it is still possible.
So is the scenario I originally gave. But that one was backed up by what we saw last year in Kharkiv and elsewhere.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
What? I am very surprised that a full 25% of people can't think of any circumstances in which casual sex isn't justifiable: I suspect that most of those 25% just put 'Always' (rather than 9 or 8) as a reaction against the 10% of annoying moralisers who say it's never justified, rather than because they genuinely couldn't think of any context in which casual sex could be wrong.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
Absolutle bollocks. You all predict that this advance will run out of steam or that front is pushing forward or the other flanking move is likely to succeed.
You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable. You have no idea about it aside from the odd youtube clip, online body/weapons count website, and some random General opining on R4.
You simply don't know.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
That is not me name calling, it is me being "realistic", which, like "sceptic", I hadn't realised was now an insult.
"You all predict that this advance will run out of steam"
What "advance", ffs ? Russia's 'advance' is like General Melchett examining the ground captured - in one-to-one scale. There's a massive, bloody, attritional battle going on. It's not like the run for Kyiv last February, or Kharkiv last autumn.
"You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable."
So, please enlighten us, oh wise one. Give us the pearls of your wisdom. No?
As I've said passim, there is a possibility that Russia has stored up an armoured fist to make another advance - and I said I feared it on the run-up to the anniversary. But IMV - and it is just a view - that is becoming increasingly unlikely, given what we've seen. But it is still possible.
So is the scenario I originally gave. But that one was backed up by what we saw last year in Kharkiv and elsewhere.
The pretence topping indulges in is that everyone commenting is doing so with no caveating or acknowledgement of uncertainty, and so they are the brave person saying something else might be the case.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
Plus lots of networks from different nations to plug into, and quite a lot of grey economy, if we're honest.
So lots of factors that we wouldn't really want to change.
And one other thought. Suppose the "first safe country" rule-that-isn't were true. That would leave us, France and so on in splendid isolation, whilst utterly screwing countries bordering disaster areas.
Are we really going to say that bit out loud?
The logical alternative would be some sort of quota system backed by financial transfers reviewed every 5/10 years or so. I don't think that is necessarily worse or less moral but it is not something we can quickly achieve by ourselves, whereas we could fund the courts properly to reduce waiting times (see Netherlands) and put very heavy penalties on employers (see Switzerland).
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
True dat.
"Braverman to ban the use of English to reduce immigration." You heard it here first.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Tbf Barty said 39 is beyond the time when it's 'safest' for a woman to have a child, which is undeniably true.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Have a look at the curves for health of baby and mother vs age. Then go light a candle at the nearest churching thanks for the safe arrival (I presume and hope)
The numbers in question are quite shocking. IIRC a few years back there was a massive attack on a Senior NHS consultant for saying that society was lying to women, on this. Having children at a younger age, is much safer and simpler.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
(Snip)
Just adding: I've never claimed to be an expert. I'm not one. If you want to 'educate' me why I'm wrong, then I'm all for a good, healthy and educational debate. But that's not what you seem to want to do. But screeching "pure fantasy" is *not* a good response.
Listen to me, or don't listen to me: that's your choice. But I'll keep on posting what I think *may* happen; feel free to join in. You might even contribute something.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Because it's a nice place to live. The Tories have tried their utmost to change this in recent years but have not as yet quite succeeded. Probably need another 5 years to finish the job.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
What? I am very surprised that a full 25% of people can't think of any circumstances in which casual sex isn't justifiable: I suspect that most of those 25% just put 'Always' (rather than 9 or 8) as a reaction against the 10% of annoying moralisers who say it's never justified, rather than because they genuinely couldn't think of any context in which casual sex could be wrong.
Yes I'm a pretty liberal kind of chap but I don't really approve of casual sex. I think it's best to only have sex with people you are in a committed loving relationship with or at least planning to be. I wouldn't try to stop other people from doing it of course, even if I thought that was possible, which it isn't.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Tbf Barty said 39 is beyond the time when it's 'safest' for a woman to have a child, which is undeniably true.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Congratulations!
I said safest, not safe. Past 35 it becomes riskier to both mother and child to have children, not risky and certainly not impossible but it is a known extra risk. After 35 there are more risks of complications leading to the mother needing to require a C-section and more risk of Downs Syndrome too.
Yes its certainly possible to have a healthy baby after 40, and we should support anyone who does. But people should be able to support themselves to have a child, in their own home, in their twenties or early thirties if they choose to do so.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Language is the most obvious one. Opportunity and diversity in the big cities probably next alongside familiarity from our cultural reach in music, sport, books and film. I don't think why is complicated.
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
True dat.
"Braverman to ban the use of English to reduce immigration." You heard it here first.
"Braverman i wahardd y defnydd o’r Saesneg i leihau mewnfudo.”
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Do you think the courts will uphold this legislation or find it in conflict with the Refugee Convention? If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
If the courts follow international precedence they will uphold this legislation.
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
Parliament keeps changing the law, the last bill was in 2022!, and consistently produces new legislation that is not upheld on this issue. To achieve the objectives of the Daily Mail and Tory right we need to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
What never seems to be addressed is why refugees want to come here rather than to a nearer, equally safe country. Without understanding the pull factors, deterrence measures are going to be ineffective.
Because it's a nice place to live. The Tories have tried their utmost to change this in recent years but have not as yet quite succeeded. Probably need another 5 years to finish the job.
Certainly compared to the Mad Max hellhole that is rural France.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Congratulations!
I said safest, not safe. Past 35 it becomes riskier to both mother and child to have children, not risky and certainly. After 35 there are more risks of complications leading to the mother needing to require a C-section and more risk of Downs Syndrome too.
Yes its certainly possible to have a healthy baby after 40, and we should support anyone who does. But people should be able to support themselves to have a child, in their own home, in their twenties or early thirties if they choose to do so.
Thanks and my apologies for misreading your comments
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Have a look at the curves for health of baby and mother vs age. Then go light a candle at the nearest churching thanks for the safe arrival (I presume and hope)
The numbers in question are quite shocking. IIRC a few years back there was a massive attack on a Senior NHS consultant for saying that society was lying to women, on this. Having children at a younger age, is much safer and simpler.
Indeed.
Looking back a few posts, though, ownership of a house isn't actually a prerequisite for having a baby. My own lad was born while we were living in rented accommodation. Mind you, that was in Germany, where you can't be thrown out of your rented home at will with two months' notice.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
Absolutle bollocks. You all predict that this advance will run out of steam or that front is pushing forward or the other flanking move is likely to succeed.
You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable. You have no idea about it aside from the odd youtube clip, online body/weapons count website, and some random General opining on R4.
You simply don't know.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
That is not me name calling, it is me being "realistic", which, like "sceptic", I hadn't realised was now an insult.
The world is complicated and difficult to understand, war even more so because of the lack of reliable information, but that doesn't mean we cannot say anything about what is happening, and use well-established principles to make cautious predictions about what might happen.
On the second bolded point, you ignore that there are a number of prominent military thinkers who have made predictions during the war that have proven to be correct. They have made predictions about Russian advances exhausting themselves, and this has come to pass. To a large extent when people like myself, or Bart, or Josias, make such predictions on here we are largely relying on the proven track record of people such as Michael Kofman, or Ben Hodges. They've made mistakes, they're open about what they aren't sure about, and what they simply don't know, but they have still drawn conclusions of one level of confidence or another, and then made more or less tentative predictions as a result.
On the first bolded point, I don't see what is so very contentious about such a prediction. Any advance, by any side in a war, will run out of steam once the advancing army runs out of reserves, or advances beyond the reach of its logistical capacity. The ability to sustain an advance relies on being able to generate more forces to conduct that advance, and to expand the logistical capacity to reach the more distant front line. This is pretty basic and fundamental.
Observing the obvious difficulty the Russians are currently experiencing in replacing their lost equipment - as evidenced, yes, by photos on twitter of destroyed T-62s, or MT-LBs converted with old naval turrets - it doesn't require any great insight to anticipate that, in the absence of supplies from China, Russia will face difficulties in generating new forces to sustain an advance, and similarly for manpower in the absence of a further mobilisation.
There are lots of things that we don't know, and that we can't predict. We don't know whether Ukraine has managed to prepare substantial new units over the winter for a spring offensive, or whether such new units as they have been able to create have been thrown into the fight to hold Bakhmut. There is still lots that we can say with varying levels of confidence.
This place - Hoi An, Vietnam - is weird. It’s intensely touristy yet somehow manages to get away it. And it remains deeply charming. The magnificent gin and tonics (with chili and cardamom) probably help. To be honest
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
Whilst it is sometimes justifiable we should also leave enough time for work, eating and sleep too.
Depends on your interpretation of the question too.
I can think of lots of times when casual sex is unjustifiable: when one party doesn't consent or is under age, when the parties are closely related, when one party is vulnerable, etc. etc.
Don't think non-consensual counts as casual. But yes, having casual sex with your wife's brother behind her back, being casual about possibly spreading a sexually transmitted disease etc might well be hard to justify.
How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
If they're in Calais they can claim asylum in France. That's perfectly safe and legal.
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Susanna Reid on GMB pointed out yesterday we have a labour shortage so by implication we should welcome them with open arms. It’s a fair point.
Its not a fair point since labour shortages aren't caused by a shortage of people and can't be solved by immigration, any more than unemployment is caused by too many people and immigrants "stealing jobs".
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply. Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
You forgot productivity. We have, in some areas gone backwards.
A husband of a friend, from Morocco, quit his job running a factory making airline meals at Heathrow. He told me he left Morocco to get away from that kind of work - people instead of machines, a crappy shed full of people boiling big vats of stuff, basically.
When stuff broke it was replaced with people quite often - literally some bloke stirring a bit pot, rather than a mechanical stirring machine.
He described it as Dickensian. Given he’d done a Masters in English Lit before coming to this country…
I didn't forget it, its linked. Wages are too low so it becomes falsely more 'productive' to throw extra bodies at the problem instead of investing in or maintaining machinery.
Wages go up due to supply and demand constraints, then machinery becomes relatively cheaper and more cost-effective, so productivity rises.
Non-COVID excess deaths now below 100. Feels like Christmas was a final big bang for the reaper picking off the low-hanging fruit that had dodged him in 2020-21 due to lockdown.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
It's also worth bearing in mind that the 5-year average death rate has itself risen due to the excess deaths resulting from the series of COVID waves over the last few years.
Ah, sorry, I should say that my five-year average excludes April 2020 to March 2021 (basically, I use 2020 from January to March and 2021 from April to December). So my five-year average isn't skewed by COVID like the official ONS figures.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
Absolutle bollocks. You all predict that this advance will run out of steam or that front is pushing forward or the other flanking move is likely to succeed.
You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable. You have no idea about it aside from the odd youtube clip, online body/weapons count website, and some random General opining on R4.
You simply don't know.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
That is not me name calling, it is me being "realistic", which, like "sceptic", I hadn't realised was now an insult.
"You all predict that this advance will run out of steam"
What "advance", ffs ? Russia's 'advance' is like General Melchett examining the ground captured - in one-to-one scale. There's a massive, bloody, attritional battle going on. It's not like the run for Kyiv last February, or Kharkiv last autumn.
"You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable."
So, please enlighten us, oh wise one. Give us the pearls of your wisdom. No?
As I've said passim, there is a possibility that Russia has stored up an armoured fist to make another advance - and I said I feared it on the run-up to the anniversary. But IMV - and it is just a view - that is becoming increasingly unlikely, given what we've seen. But it is still possible.
So is the scenario I originally gave. But that one was backed up by what we saw last year in Kharkiv and elsewhere.
Mate that's great - top scenario.
But how many times do I have to answer the question, or entreaty "please enlighten us" with my response of "I've no idea". This seems pretty straightforward. The only thing you seem to be having trouble with is that you have no idea either.
If your day job really is to track the Ukraine-Russia war, and I'm not 100% sure that it is - then you would be in the bucket of those people who are required to make themselves informed as much as possible, and who are nevertheless unable to forecast what will happen next week or month.
If you are just assembling ad hoc, intermittent, and random information from the web and choosing isolated examples to show that you are or were right then I will dare to suggest that it is of less interest.
Plus as it is a betting site - justification for all this in your opinion - could you share some bets you have put on which reflect your view of the war.
We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.
This guy was literally in Number 10.
Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.
Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.
Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.
I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.
There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.
I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
We can predict "likely" and unlikely outcomes, based on logic, reason and evidence.
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct. And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
(Snip)
Just adding: I've never claimed to be an expert. I'm not one. If you want to 'educate' me why I'm wrong, then I'm all for a good, healthy and educational debate. But that's not what you seem to want to do. But screeching "pure fantasy" is *not* a good response.
Listen to me, or don't listen to me: that's your choice. But I'll keep on posting what I think *may* happen; feel free to join in. You might even contribute something.
Sorry just saw this.
So indeed you are not even an expert. Jeez.
Look of course you can carry on posting on the subject on PB. Go for it. Just like Leon and his Bangkok experiences, and HYUFD and his views on the military excursions up the A1(M).
It's PB. We love all that shit.
But don't expect people not to call you, a self-acknowledged non-expert, out about it all.
Oh and I love the "carp from the sidelines" line. Where are you posting your dispatches from?
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Have a look at the curves for health of baby and mother vs age. Then go light a candle at the nearest churching thanks for the safe arrival (I presume and hope)
The numbers in question are quite shocking. IIRC a few years back there was a massive attack on a Senior NHS consultant for saying that society was lying to women, on this. Having children at a younger age, is much safer and simpler.
Indeed.
Looking back a few posts, though, ownership of a house isn't actually a prerequisite for having a baby. My own lad was born while we were living in rented accommodation. Mind you, that was in Germany, where you can't be thrown out of your rented home at will with two months' notice.
Yes plenty of people bring up children in rented accommodation, some happily, others resigned to it. We shouldn't fetishise home ownership. We were renting (in the US) when we had our first two children, it wasn't a problem. The issue, as you say, is lack of security of tenure and high rent levels. The solution is BUILD MORE HOUSES, ESPECIALLY SOCIAL HOUSING.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
Why? This survey says that 90% of British people think that 'casual sex' is either sometimes or always justifiable. A plurality (25%) of people say it is 'Always justifiable'. If anything those figures are higher than I would have expected.
Only 25% saying casual sex is always justifiable is astonishingly low for the supposedly live and let live, secular and socially liberal UK we now live in
What? I am very surprised that a full 25% of people can't think of any circumstances in which casual sex isn't justifiable: I suspect that most of those 25% just put 'Always' (rather than 9 or 8) as a reaction against the 10% of annoying moralisers who say it's never justified, rather than because they genuinely couldn't think of any context in which casual sex could be wrong.
Yes I'm a pretty liberal kind of chap but I don't really approve of casual sex. I think it's best to only have sex with people you are in a committed loving relationship with or at least planning to be. I wouldn't try to stop other people from doing it of course, even if I thought that was possible, which it isn't.
The thing is that people don't need to justify to me their choice of whether they will have casual sex or not. They get to make their choice, I get to make mine. So I just don't see where the concept of justification comes into it.
It's not something like criminal damage, where you can justify kicking someone's door in to rescue them from a fire, but the default assumption would be that kicking down a door is wrong, and so you would need a specific reason to justify doing so.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Have a look at the curves for health of baby and mother vs age. Then go light a candle at the nearest churching thanks for the safe arrival (I presume and hope)
The numbers in question are quite shocking. IIRC a few years back there was a massive attack on a Senior NHS consultant for saying that society was lying to women, on this. Having children at a younger age, is much safer and simpler.
Indeed.
Looking back a few posts, though, ownership of a house isn't actually a prerequisite for having a baby. My own lad was born while we were living in rented accommodation. Mind you, that was in Germany, where you can't be thrown out of your rented home at will with two months' notice.
Having space is an issue. Many flats being built these days are pretty compact. Three bed flats are moderately rare.
I've heard many people saying that having a kid/having another is limited by their accomodation.
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
Given the average age of first marriage and first child is now nearer 35 than 25 in the UK most people will happily rent throughout their 20s now and only seek to buy property and start a family in their 30s.
Women now want to go to university and have careers, most don't want to leave school and become mothers immediately
They will. But they will do so because they have no other option. I have never "happily" rented.
Most of the top graduates all want to work and rent in inner London though their 20s.
Only once they hit 30 will most of them consider marriage and starting a family and settling down moving out to suburban London or the Home counties to buy a property. They will mostly never be able to afford to buy property in inner London anyway
The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
Why should they succeed, though?
Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.
On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
Comments
In 2010 it was still illegal for gays to get married, we still had campaigns for marriage equality and many people still vehemently opposed equal marriage. Even a few years after 2010, I recall getting into a rather nasty argument that turned heated on this very site with a fellow Tory (since we were both Tories at the time) on the subject.
Fast forward a decade and the idea that gays shouldn't be able to get married and be treated equally is accepted by almost all now as utterly absurd. Even people who a decade ago would oppose it now openly admit that they've seen how happy some of their friends or family are and have changed their mind.
Its a remarkable change for the better in the past generation.
http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2023.pdf
Kind of a stupid question though.
One of the reasons this issue is so insoluble in our politics is that neither side is willing or able to do something unpleasant to solve it.
In order for the Right to reduce the number of "genuine" refugees to a low enough number they are willing to accept (maybe, no more than 10,000 a year?) they would have to tighten the definition of a "genuine" refugee so tightly that it would be rejected as inhumane by a majority of the public. The Left is unwilling to accept that the numbers of people who would qualify as refugees under the present generally accepted definition is so large that it would require a war-time scale of response to provide for the huddled masses, and thereby incur a cost that the majority of the public is unwilling to pay.
So, as a country, in common with other Western countries, we are in a situation where we have made a promise that we are unwilling to keep. The emphasis on the legality of the mode of transport used by refugees on their way here is then typical of the displacement activity that results from refusing to engage with the core difficulty of the situation.
Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
The younger the age group, the more they are fucked over by the housing crisis.
This means that the housing crisis fucks over people from ethnic groups more than white people.
The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.
Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
And those who do so, whom you criticise, have been routinely shown to be correct.
And the so-called self-named "realists" whom you don't seem to say boo to at all, have been routinely shown to be completely wrong.
Everything Josias said is reasonable, based entirely upon logic, reason and evidence before us. Not based on wishful thinking. The fact that you can't find a single thing to disagree with on a factual basis, so are resorting to nonsensical name-calling instead is because you are engaging in complete bollocks.
"Know only that it is complete bollocks"
Why? What do you base that on, if you 'have absolutely no idea' what is going to happen?
Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
'Please tell me for each of the following actions whether you think it can always be justified, never be justified, or
something in between, using this card. (Read out and code one answer for each statement):
Q177 Claiming government benefits to which you are not entitled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q178 Avoiding a fare on public transport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q179 Stealing property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q180 Cheating on taxes if you have a chance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q181 Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q182 Homosexuality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q183 Prostitution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q184 Abortion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q185 Divorce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q186 Sex before marriage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q187 Suicide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q188 Euthanasia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q189 For a man to beat his wife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q190 Parents beating children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q191 Violence against other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q192 Terrorism as a political, ideological or religious mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q193 Having casual sex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q194 Political violence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q195 Death penalty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10'
It's a pretty disturbing list, framing 'Homosexuality' as something immoral, like stealing or a man beating his wife. Didn't we have a header about dodgy polling the other day? This is a good example.
And here's me thinking the NHS short of cash. How much does it cost to pay people to remove women from the NHS?!
- Religious belief that development is bad
- A rising population
- Hating NIMBYs, but that development across the road is evil because {reasons}
- Most development is massive estates of houses that cause local house price dips as they are built
- The said estates are often ghastly.
- The only person in the country who seems to try and understand the kind of development people actually want has a servant whose specified job is putting the toothpaste on his toothbrush in the morning.
So the choices are often either no houses or a vast mass of shitboxes with no shops or amenities associated with them.
I am not sure what Britain's "fair share" is, but I think it is interesting to ask how "fair share" should be defined.
I doubt it should be "per capita".
It should be done on the basis of "sustainability". And I guess by that vague term, I mean that it is clear that are large areas of Europe and North America that are safe, prosperous, and relatively empty of population, so they could support many more people.
Per capita sends more people to areas that are already heavily populated, so I don't think it is the right measure.
For example, it is very obvious that large parts of the US -- a very empty country by Western European standards -- could benefit and could sustain a greater population than currently.
Labour shortages are caused by pay being too low, meaning that there's an overabundance of demand versus supply.
Unemployment is caused by pay being too high, meaning there's a shortage of demand versus supply.
Demand scales with population. If you have more people, demand goes up commensurately, so it can't create or resolve a shortage, but changing pay does.
Orthodox Jews would all see active homosexuality ie having sexual relations with someone of the same gender, as sinful.
Being of homosexual inclination but celibate would not be sinful for them however
If there weren't boundary changes then referring back to 2017 might be more sensible.
But there are. And nobody's going to be compiling notional 2017 results.
Consequently parties will be basing their logistics strategy on 2019 notional results. And when you're starting from so far back - as Cameron was in 2010 - logistics is very difficult. It's Sir Keir's biggest problem right now. I wonder if his party realises it.
Reminds me of the comments among the Peruvian elite about the people doing Guano digging in the 19th cent.
The lazy scum wanted enough money to feed their families or some such. So they imported Japanese labour as pretty much slave labour to dig the literal shit.
If it is likely that the courts will not uphold it, then are the traitors not the ones pushing a solution that will fail after wasting another 2 years and precious court time?
https://tinyurl.com/2hxu6tat
Non-COVID excess deaths now below 100. Feels like Christmas was a final big bang for the reaper picking off the low-hanging fruit that had dodged him in 2020-21 due to lockdown.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
07-Oct-22 | 9,835 | 400 | 10,807 | 972
14-Oct-22 | 10,091 | 565 | 11,134 | 1,043
21-Oct-22 | 10,224 | 687 | 11,251 | 1,027
28-Oct-22 | 10,013 | 651 | 10,594 | 581
04-Nov-22 | 10,278 | 650 | 11,145 | 867
11-Nov-22 | 10,743 | 518 | 11,020 | 277
18-Nov-22 | 10,786 | 423 | 11,156 | 370
25-Nov-22 | 10,705 | 348 | 11,135 | 430
02-Dec-22 | 10,725 | 317 | 10,990 | 265
09-Dec-22 | 11,007 | 326 | 11,368 | 361
16-Dec-22 | 11,203 | 390 | 11,999 | 796
23-Dec-22 | 12,037 | 429 | 14,101 | 2,064
30-Dec-22 | 7,925 | 393 | 9,124 | 1,199
06-Jan-23 | 12,037 | 739 | 14,244 | 2,207
13-Jan-23 | 13,749 | 922 | 16,459 | 2,710
20-Jan-23 | 13,098 | 781 | 15,023 | 1,925
27-Jan-23 | 12,562 | 579 | 13,588 | 1,026
03-Feb-23 | 12,108 | 499 | 12,913 | 805
10-Feb-23 | 11,794 | 446 | 12,226 | 432
17-Feb-23 | 11,586 | 416 | 11,766 | 180
24-Feb-23 | 11,444 | 420 | 11,532 | 88
Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
If they don't, then Parliament can change the law.
People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
https://unherd.com/thepost/britain-is-now-one-of-the-worlds-most-socially-liberal-countries/
A husband of a friend, from Morocco, quit his job running a factory making airline meals at Heathrow. He told me he left Morocco to get away from that kind of work - people instead of machines, a crappy shed full of people boiling big vats of stuff, basically.
When stuff broke it was replaced with people quite often - literally some bloke stirring a bit pot, rather than a mechanical stirring machine.
He described it as Dickensian. Given he’d done a Masters in English Lit before coming to this country…
A key part is the common belief that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country and can't travel through France to get here. That is not what we have signed up to. If we don't want it we should leave (or try reform which will probably eventually work as impacts other countries too, but take a decade or more).
I mean, if someone is engaged enough to be persuaded to vote if they were not already definitely going to, they are probably on the ball enough to know the Tories are not winning a by election in Bootle.
Now in Bakhmut - w/ a lack of coordination between Prigoyzhin, Shoigu, Gerasimov & Putin - it appears they are especially violating one: Unity of command.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1632903182169849859
Might explain Ukraine's apparent change of mind about holding on in Bakhmut.
Figures available here:
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp
That requires investment, though. Real investment.
Women now want to go to university and have careers, most don't want to leave school and become mothers immediately
If we all spoke Welsh the numbers would dry up.....
You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable. You have no idea about it aside from the odd youtube clip, online body/weapons count website, and some random General opining on R4.
You simply don't know.
Prominent strategic and military thinkers, experts on the region, have got this wrong since the war began but now I'm supposed to listen to @JosiasJessop.
That is not me name calling, it is me being "realistic", which, like "sceptic", I hadn't realised was now an insult.
So the 10% - 20% unemployment rates between 1920 and 1940 were due to wages being too high?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nominal-wages-consumer-prices-and-real-wages-in-the-uk-since-1750?time=1882..1952
We installed it 3 years later and the idea we had it easy is simply not our experience though having a Scot as a wife helped as she was very thrifty, bless her
What’s that massive bulge in your jeans @leon?
Oh that’s just my Dong
Etc
How many married people would agree with the proposition that it's always justifiable, for instance ?
Answering no to that proposition doesn't make them illiberal.
The survey lumps together a load of different questions of morality which aren't readily comparable (unless you're a hardline reactionary, or an extreme libertarian).
Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
I can think of lots of times when casual sex is unjustifiable: when one party doesn't consent or is under age, when the parties are closely related, when one party is vulnerable, etc. etc.
So lots of factors that we wouldn't really want to change.
And one other thought. Suppose the "first safe country" rule-that-isn't were true. That would leave us, France and so on in splendid isolation, whilst utterly screwing countries bordering disaster areas.
Are we really going to say that bit out loud?
In short, people who are forced from their own country tend to seek refuge in places where they feel they are likely to be able to have a chance of making a decent living. These are typically places where they: already have contacts, know something of the culture, can speak the language and have a chance of employment. It's really not rocket science. It's exactly what you or I would do if forced to leave the UK.
It's worth noting that many European countries take more refugees than we do, both absolutely and relative to their size.
What "advance", ffs ? Russia's 'advance' is like General Melchett examining the ground captured - in one-to-one scale. There's a massive, bloody, attritional battle going on. It's not like the run for Kyiv last February, or Kharkiv last autumn.
"You are all so far from understanding what might or might not happen in the war it is laughable."
So, please enlighten us, oh wise one. Give us the pearls of your wisdom. No?
As I've said passim, there is a possibility that Russia has stored up an armoured fist to make another advance - and I said I feared it on the run-up to the anniversary. But IMV - and it is just a view - that is becoming increasingly unlikely, given what we've seen. But it is still possible.
So is the scenario I originally gave. But that one was backed up by what we saw last year in Kharkiv and elsewhere.
"Braverman to ban the use of English to reduce immigration." You heard it here first.
The numbers in question are quite shocking. IIRC a few years back there was a massive attack on a Senior NHS consultant for saying that society was lying to women, on this. Having children at a younger age, is much safer and simpler.
Listen to me, or don't listen to me: that's your choice. But I'll keep on posting what I think *may* happen; feel free to join in. You might even contribute something.
I said safest, not safe. Past 35 it becomes riskier to both mother and child to have children, not risky and certainly not impossible but it is a known extra risk. After 35 there are more risks of complications leading to the mother needing to require a C-section and more risk of Downs Syndrome too.
Yes its certainly possible to have a healthy baby after 40, and we should support anyone who does. But people should be able to support themselves to have a child, in their own home, in their twenties or early thirties if they choose to do so.
Looking back a few posts, though, ownership of a house isn't actually a prerequisite for having a baby. My own lad was born while we were living in rented accommodation. Mind you, that was in Germany, where you can't be thrown out of your rented home at will with two months' notice.
On the second bolded point, you ignore that there are a number of prominent military thinkers who have made predictions during the war that have proven to be correct. They have made predictions about Russian advances exhausting themselves, and this has come to pass. To a large extent when people like myself, or Bart, or Josias, make such predictions on here we are largely relying on the proven track record of people such as Michael Kofman, or Ben Hodges. They've made mistakes, they're open about what they aren't sure about, and what they simply don't know, but they have still drawn conclusions of one level of confidence or another, and then made more or less tentative predictions as a result.
On the first bolded point, I don't see what is so very contentious about such a prediction. Any advance, by any side in a war, will run out of steam once the advancing army runs out of reserves, or advances beyond the reach of its logistical capacity. The ability to sustain an advance relies on being able to generate more forces to conduct that advance, and to expand the logistical capacity to reach the more distant front line. This is pretty basic and fundamental.
Observing the obvious difficulty the Russians are currently experiencing in replacing their lost equipment - as evidenced, yes, by photos on twitter of destroyed T-62s, or MT-LBs converted with old naval turrets - it doesn't require any great insight to anticipate that, in the absence of supplies from China, Russia will face difficulties in generating new forces to sustain an advance, and similarly for manpower in the absence of a further mobilisation.
There are lots of things that we don't know, and that we can't predict. We don't know whether Ukraine has managed to prepare substantial new units over the winter for a spring offensive, or whether such new units as they have been able to create have been thrown into the fight to hold Bakhmut. There is still lots that we can say with varying levels of confidence.
Wages go up due to supply and demand constraints, then machinery becomes relatively cheaper and more cost-effective, so productivity rises.
But how many times do I have to answer the question, or entreaty "please enlighten us" with my response of "I've no idea". This seems pretty straightforward. The only thing you seem to be having trouble with is that you have no idea either.
If your day job really is to track the Ukraine-Russia war, and I'm not 100% sure that it is - then you would be in the bucket of those people who are required to make themselves informed as much as possible, and who are nevertheless unable to forecast what will happen next week or month.
If you are just assembling ad hoc, intermittent, and random information from the web and choosing isolated examples to show that you are or were right then I will dare to suggest that it is of less interest.
Plus as it is a betting site - justification for all this in your opinion - could you share some bets you have put on which reflect your view of the war.
So indeed you are not even an expert. Jeez.
Look of course you can carry on posting on the subject on PB. Go for it. Just like Leon and his Bangkok experiences, and HYUFD and his views on the military excursions up the A1(M).
It's PB. We love all that shit.
But don't expect people not to call you, a self-acknowledged non-expert, out about it all.
Oh and I love the "carp from the sidelines" line. Where are you posting your dispatches from?
It's not something like criminal damage, where you can justify kicking someone's door in to rescue them from a fire, but the default assumption would be that kicking down a door is wrong, and so you would need a specific reason to justify doing so.
I've heard many people saying that having a kid/having another is limited by their accomodation.
Only once they hit 30 will most of them consider marriage and starting a family and settling down moving out to suburban London or the Home counties to buy a property. They will mostly never be able to afford to buy property in inner London anyway
is just one issue