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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
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.
There is also the greater political picture. I have for a while been of the opinion that Ukraine could relatively easily drive the Russians back to the border if they were given the full military support of the West in terms of weapons and intelligence. However, I also think that the West is deliberately not giving its unlimited support for fear of the risk of provoking nuclear retaliation from a desperate Putin, and that it is in the best interests of the West to grind Russia down economically by prolonging the war. Yes, I know there are good counter arguments to this view, but this is certainly worth consideration. In short, the progress and outcome of the war may well be decided by factors unrelated to military strength and tactics.
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
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.
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.
Hmmm
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 warnext election, 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 election.
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.
Or, if you will allow me to summarise: We have no idea but are chucking a lot of blancmange at the wall and some of it is sticking.
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.
Or, if you will allow me to summarise: We have no idea but are chucking a lot of blancmange at the wall and some of it is sticking.
chucking a lot of blancmange at the wall and some of it is sticking.
So you are saying that his is an expert trends-and-intelligence analyst?
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.”
Can't believe I'm banging on about the Ukraine war with 1st PB Armchair Brigade while there is a discussion about casual sex going on at the same time.
Can't believe I'm banging on about the Ukraine war with 1st PB Armchair Brigade while there is a discussion about casual sex going on at the same time.
Talk about messed up priorities.
Isn't it connected somewhat? Zelensky is a social liberal who played the piano with his penis on TV while Putin is an anti Woke social conservative
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.
Hmmm
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 warnext election, 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 election.
Oh absolutely. As I said, go for your (his) life about it all. Fill your boots from the trenches of West Cambridgeshire rather than carp from the sidelines.
Just expect to be called out about it.
Plus if I was picky I'd say that if nothing else, opinion polls provide a vaguely correlated shadow control example of future elections and hence there is something to go on in that regard. But/and we know what we all think of opinion polls.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
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.
I agree justification is a weird word to use.
Especially for anyone who is a Calvinist or has read James Hogg's Confessions of a Justified Sinner.
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.
There is also the greater political picture. I have for a while been of the opinion that Ukraine could relatively easily drive the Russians back to the border if they were given the full military support of the West in terms of weapons and intelligence. However, I also think that the West is deliberately not giving its unlimited support for fear of the risk of provoking nuclear retaliation from a desperate Putin, and that it is in the best interests of the West to grind Russia down economically by prolonging the war. Yes, I know there are good counter arguments to this view, but this is certainly worth consideration. In short, the progress and outcome of the war may well be decided by factors unrelated to military strength and tactics.
There is a claim in several news outlets that Russia was deterred from trying to obtain longer range tactical ballistic missiles from Iran or China by the suggestion that if they did, the US would provide ATACAMS.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Bank counter staff and toilet cleaners can afford Home Counties houses without inheriting?
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.
There is also the greater political picture. I have for a while been of the opinion that Ukraine could relatively easily drive the Russians back to the border if they were given the full military support of the West in terms of weapons and intelligence. However, I also think that the West is deliberately not giving its unlimited support for fear of the risk of provoking nuclear retaliation from a desperate Putin, and that it is in the best interests of the West to grind Russia down economically by prolonging the war. Yes, I know there are good counter arguments to this view, but this is certainly worth consideration. In short, the progress and outcome of the war may well be decided by factors unrelated to military strength and tactics.
You could make the argument that the level of Western support provided has been the minimum necessary to prevent a Russian victory.
I certainly hope that the West will provide support sufficient for Ukraine to regain its lost territory and people, but until Ukraine does so it's still arguable whether that support is being provided.
There is also the greater political picture. I have for a while been of the opinion that Ukraine could relatively easily drive the Russians back to the border if they were given the full military support of the West in terms of weapons and intelligence. However, I also think that the West is deliberately not giving its unlimited support for fear of the risk of provoking nuclear retaliation from a desperate Putin, and that it is in the best interests of the West to grind Russia down economically by prolonging the war. Yes, I know there are good counter arguments to this view, but this is certainly worth consideration. In short, the progress and outcome of the war may well be decided by factors unrelated to military strength and tactics.
So far the SMO is very much to the advantage of the USA and China. Europe and Russia are getting fucked but Ukraine is getting broad spectrum, failed state ruination.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Not true. I know a fair few people in banking who are unable to afford the several hundred K for a flat.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Can't believe I'm banging on about the Ukraine war with 1st PB Armchair Brigade while there is a discussion about casual sex going on at the same time.
Talk about messed up priorities.
Isn't it connected somewhat? Zelensky is a social liberal who played the piano with his penis on TV while Putin is an anti Woke social conservative
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
To be fair to Topping I think he’s made it clear that even though he’s ex army he is no expert on Ukraine war scenarios (see also Dura Ace) despite knowing the tactics of maybe an anti-tank infantry platoon as was from his days in the army. I think him having been in the army probably makes him less tolerant of people opining about military options when there are plenty of people who are making these decisions with all the info who cannot find a solution at present.
So when he reads ideas such as the Ukrainian forces driving through the south to cut off the Russian forces I’m guessing he, like I do, has a bit of a head/desk moment where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”. It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference.
So I understand your interest and wanting to dig into things, I think sometimes it’s hopecasting but I also get where Topping is coming from - however I might have got Topping’s position wrong and so am also guilty of opining on the internet about something where I’ve just picked up a few facts.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Bank counter staff and toilet cleaners can afford Home Counties houses without inheriting?
Since when were most of them graduates? My original point that top graduates want to rent in inner London in their 20s then only settle down and move to the Home counties in their 30s stands absolutely
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
100/10,000
Think about that.
And there are a number of other risks, including death of the mother, which similarly escalate with age.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Not true. I know a fair few people in banking who are unable to afford the several hundred K for a flat.
I wasn't talking about buying a flat in inner London, I was talking about buying a semi detached in Essex or Kent or Berkshire or Hertfordshire with your partner
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.
You don't need it to be your day job to understand that logistics are critical to warfare, there's hundreds of years of evidence to back that up.
You don't need to be on the front lines to take a look at the logistical issues facing both sides. Indeed being detached from the frontline can aid in stepping back and taking an overview.
Yes the future isn't certain, but no that does not mean all possibilities are equally likely.
Russia has severe logistical constraints, that's been clear since very early in this war, which is why many of us were able to see that the forecast Russian rollover of Ukraine wouldn't happen - and that Ukrainian counteradvances would be quite plausible.
What happens next can't be certain, but that doesn't mean we can't have an intelligent conversation and discuss possibilities or probabilities.
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
Being ex-Army gives me precisely zero insight into the Russian-Ukraine war. Aside from perhaps (perhaps) some tactical elements - eg spotting when a particular incident is or isn't likely to be the result of hand-held anti-tank weapons, or noting how a youtube clip of 30 Russian or Ukrainian soldiers debussing from an armoured vehicle is unlikely to be evidence of the decisive action of the conflict.
But the fact that I haven't made as many guesses as you have is imo a good thing not a bad thing.
Many people on here have made extended scenario analyses about what might or might not happen and I just don't see the value in it as it is wholly speculative. Or "guesses" as you call them.
But lest anyone think I am anti-free speech for heaven's sake carry on guessing. Just be aware that my eyebrows will ascend to the heavens each time. Not that should bother you an iota.
Worth paying for in full (in my view), but I hope I don't break any particular rule by reproducing the delightful final sentence.
"Brexit has become tedious, and within that zone of exquisite monotony there is a VIP area of mind-numbing ennui reserved for its effects on Northern Ireland."
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
100/10,000
Think about that.
And there are a number of other risks, including death of the mother, which similarly escalate with age.
1% risk, yes.
You won't stop middle class women with degrees wanting high flying careers in their 20s or even most of their 30s and only considering having children in their late 30s and early 40s with that
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
To be fair to Topping I think he’s made it clear that even though he’s ex army he is no expert on Ukraine war scenarios (see also Dura Ace) despite knowing the tactics of maybe an anti-tank infantry platoon as was from his days in the army. I think him having been in the army probably makes him less tolerant of people opining about military options when there are plenty of people who are making these decisions with all the info who cannot find a solution at present.
So when he reads ideas such as the Ukrainian forces driving through the south to cut off the Russian forces I’m guessing he, like I do, has a bit of a head/desk moment where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”. It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference.
So I understand your interest and wanting to dig into things, I think sometimes it’s hopecasting but I also get where Topping is coming from - however I might have got Topping’s position wrong and so am also guilty of opining on the internet about something where I’ve just picked up a few facts.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
To be fair to Topping I think he’s made it clear that even though he’s ex army he is no expert on Ukraine war scenarios (see also Dura Ace) despite knowing the tactics of maybe an anti-tank infantry platoon as was from his days in the army. I think him having been in the army probably makes him less tolerant of people opining about military options when there are plenty of people who are making these decisions with all the info who cannot find a solution at present.
So when he reads ideas such as the Ukrainian forces driving through the south to cut off the Russian forces I’m guessing he, like I do, has a bit of a head/desk moment where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”. It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference.
So I understand your interest and wanting to dig into things, I think sometimes it’s hopecasting but I also get where Topping is coming from - however I might have got Topping’s position wrong and so am also guilty of opining on the internet about something where I’ve just picked up a few facts.
Have we ever been seen in the same room together?
We were in the MOD planning room last Tuesday organising the drive through the south of Ukraine using my Brittains Guards’ bands figurines to represent divisions on the map I believe.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Bank counter staff and toilet cleaners can afford Home Counties houses without inheriting?
Since when were most of them graduates? My original point that top graduates want to rent in inner London in their 20s then only settle down and move to the Home counties in their 30s stands absolutely
Yes, but even with the Blair-inflated student numbers, "top graduates" are a small proportion of the population.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time.
No amount of cheaper childcare provision or more affordable housing will change that fundamentally
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.
You don't need it to be your day job to understand that logistics are critical to warfare, there's hundreds of years of evidence to back that up.
You don't need to be on the front lines to take a look at the logistical issues facing both sides. Indeed being detached from the frontline can aid in stepping back and taking an overview.
Yes the future isn't certain, but no that does not mean all possibilities are equally likely.
Russia has severe logistical constraints, that's been clear since very early in this war, which is why many of us were able to see that the forecast Russian rollover of Ukraine wouldn't happen - and that Ukrainian counteradvances would be quite plausible.
What happens next can't be certain, but that doesn't mean we can't have an intelligent conversation and discuss possibilities or probabilities.
As I said, knock yourself out. Have those intelligent conversations.
If there is a forthcoming general election there is nowhere better than PB to work out what is going on although I have mentioned several times that people talk about the "betting markets" knowing this or that outcome when we on PB do do this *a lot* and we have no idea of the eventual outcome so how come the "betting markets" all of a sudden know.
If there is a war, however, and assuming we're not lined up shoulder to shoulder on the start line waiting for someone to blow the whistle, then I think PB is a less than useless resource and I'd rather listen to a podcast.
But I think people can work out my position so I'll leave it there.
Now, about this casual sex we're all entitled to...
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
To be fair to Topping I think he’s made it clear that even though he’s ex army he is no expert on Ukraine war scenarios (see also Dura Ace) despite knowing the tactics of maybe an anti-tank infantry platoon as was from his days in the army. I think him having been in the army probably makes him less tolerant of people opining about military options when there are plenty of people who are making these decisions with all the info who cannot find a solution at present.
So when he reads ideas such as the Ukrainian forces driving through the south to cut off the Russian forces I’m guessing he, like I do, has a bit of a head/desk moment where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”. It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference.
So I understand your interest and wanting to dig into things, I think sometimes it’s hopecasting but I also get where Topping is coming from - however I might have got Topping’s position wrong and so am also guilty of opining on the internet about something where I’ve just picked up a few facts.
Have we ever been seen in the same room together?
We were in the MOD planning room last Tuesday organising the drive through the south of Ukraine using my Brittains Guards’ bands figurines to represent divisions on the map I believe.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Grandson One and his wife, both teachers in their early 30s, bought a house in Southeast Essex.
They were managing very comfortably. Now they have provided us with Great-Grandchild One, and they are carefully balancing the maternity/paternity leaves they are allowed. If we make it impossible, or very difficult, for people like them to live in Southeast Essex, or elsewhere in the outer London area what sort of society are we going to have?
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time
This is your regular reminder that the upper middle class are not the only people in the country.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Bank counter staff and toilet cleaners can afford Home Counties houses without inheriting?
Since when were most of them graduates? My original point that top graduates want to rent in inner London in their 20s then only settle down and move to the Home counties in their 30s stands absolutely
Yes, but even with the Blair-inflated student numbers, "top graduates" are a small proportion of the population.
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?
Massively
Will also look massively different country by country
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.
Or, if you will allow me to summarise: We have no idea but are chucking a lot of blancmange at the wall and some of it is sticking.
Yeah, I don't think that is what is happening.
There were people on here last summer - I won't name names, as I can't be arsed to go and check the threads to find out - who were looking at the incremental gains the Russians made in taking Izyum, Severodonetsk and Popasna, and projecting that forward to inevitable Russian victory over the following several years. Then there were others of us who argued otherwise, that the Russian advance would "run out of steam"
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time
This is your regular reminder that the upper middle class are not the only people in the country.
No but generally the posher you are and the more high flying your job, the later in life on average you are likely to have children. Still a fair number on council estates at the other extreme having children at 15 to 20
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Bank counter staff and toilet cleaners can afford Home Counties houses without inheriting?
Since when were most of them graduates? My original point that top graduates want to rent in inner London in their 20s then only settle down and move to the Home counties in their 30s stands absolutely
Yes, but even with the Blair-inflated student numbers, "top graduates" are a small proportion of the population.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
100/10,000
Think about that.
And there are a number of other risks, including death of the mother, which similarly escalate with age.
1% risk, yes.
You won't stop middle class women with degrees wanting high flying careers in their 20s or even most of their 30s and only considering having children in their late 30s and early 40s with that
One of the biggest risks an older first time mother faces is not being able to conceive at all. Of course there is IVF. But IVF is very, very expensive and a very unpleasant experience. And works, what, about 1 time in 5? We shouldn't, as a society, be organising ourselves in a way where having children is left until after it is biologically straightforward to do 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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Grandson One and his wife, both teachers in their early 30s, bought a house in Southeast Essex.
They were managing very comfortably. Now they have provided us with Great-Grandchild One, and they are carefully balancing the maternity/paternity leaves they are allowed. If we make it impossible, or very difficult, for people like them to live in Southeast Essex, or elsewhere in the outer London area what sort of society are we going to have?
So your grandchildren, teachers not City bankers or lawyers, have bought property in South Essex.
Thanks for proving my point there is still plenty of affordable property to buy in the Home counties if you are willing to look beyond London
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
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.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Bank counter staff and toilet cleaners can afford Home Counties houses without inheriting?
Since when were most of them graduates? My original point that top graduates want to rent in inner London in their 20s then only settle down and move to the Home counties in their 30s stands absolutely
You said "If you work for a bank, [...] in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East." That includes all people who work for banks.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
I agree with this, and yet, demographically, later motherhood is one of the factors that will reduce the size of the global population at its peak. If you brought the average age of first child forward by five years in the UK it would have a considerable impact on the size of the UK population.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Believe it or not, some of us actually enjoy significant and prolonged emotional connection. We're not all like you, Leon.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Bank counter staff and toilet cleaners can afford Home Counties houses without inheriting?
Since when were most of them graduates? My original point that top graduates want to rent in inner London in their 20s then only settle down and move to the Home counties in their 30s stands absolutely
You said "If you work for a bank, [...] in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East." That includes all people who work for banks.
His earlier post in the thread referenced "top graduates". While some of them may end up as toilet cleaners, I doubt that's the norm.
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
Seems unlikely most of them will be able to afford to buy anywhere in the South East.
If you work for a bank, a corporate law firm or a consultancy or for Google or Facebook etc in inner London you can easily afford to buy a property in the South East. Especially if you both do
Grandson One and his wife, both teachers in their early 30s, bought a house in Southeast Essex.
They were managing very comfortably. Now they have provided us with Great-Grandchild One, and they are carefully balancing the maternity/paternity leaves they are allowed. If we make it impossible, or very difficult, for people like them to live in Southeast Essex, or elsewhere in the outer London area what sort of society are we going to have?
So your grandchildren, teachers not City bankers or lawyers, have bought property in South Essex.
Thanks for proving my point there is still plenty of affordable property to buy in the Home counties if you are willing to look beyond London
That's true to an extent.
However you've missed the you've missed the bit where they were able to buy a house because they had both incomes. Now they've only one it's more difficult.
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.
I think that's mostly right, there's nothing wrong with casual sex as such (eg most committed loving sexual relationships begin with sex that is casual nowadays). But there are circumstances where you could argue that it is wrong - although probably they involve some other 'sin' like deceit, betrayal, negligence, cruelty, indifference, disrespect, lack of self-respect.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time.
No amount of cheaper childcare provision or more affordable housing will change that fundamentally
Do they 'want' careers? I'd suggest hardly anyone (the admirable Nick P excepted here) 'wants' a career. What people 'want' is a nice life. Which costs money. A career is for most people a means to an end. People don't put off children because they're having such fun slogging themselves to death in an office 11 hours a day. They do it because it's the only way they can afford a nice life. And I'm not saying effort shouldn't equal reward. But for the under 40s, the effort to reward ratio seems a lot less favourable than it was for my generation or the one before.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time.
No amount of cheaper childcare provision or more affordable housing will change that fundamentally
Do they 'want' careers? I'd suggest hardly anyone (the admirable Nick P excepted here) 'wants' a career. What people 'want' is a nice life. Which costs money. A career is for most people a means to an end. People don't put off children because they're having such fun slogging themselves to death in an office 11 hours a day. They do it because it's the only way they can afford a nice life. And I'm not saying effort shouldn't equal reward. But for the under 40s, the effort to reward ratio seems a lot less favourable than it was for my generation or the one before.
The average graduate certainly does want a career.
A generation or so before 90-95%% of women did not go to university and most had married and had their first child by 25 let alone 30. Now 40%+ of women go to university and want careers first before having children, hence the age of first child and marriage in the UK is now over 30.
The biggest change to later motherhood is more going to university and more women in the workplace (plus longer average life expectancy), not childcare (which their grandparents and often their parents never had or even housing given 100 years ago most rented but still had their first child by 25)
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Ha ha, I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life other than to say I have had nothing to complain about. Personally I think sex without love or the prospect of it seems like a rather empty experience. But if it's your thing nobody is stopping you, least of all me!
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time.
No amount of cheaper childcare provision or more affordable housing will change that fundamentally
Do they 'want' careers? I'd suggest hardly anyone (the admirable Nick P excepted here) 'wants' a career. What people 'want' is a nice life. Which costs money. A career is for most people a means to an end. People don't put off children because they're having such fun slogging themselves to death in an office 11 hours a day. They do it because it's the only way they can afford a nice life. And I'm not saying effort shouldn't equal reward. But for the under 40s, the effort to reward ratio seems a lot less favourable than it was for my generation or the one before.
While working may simply be a means to an end for some, I would have thought that most people do actually want some sort of career. Once they have enough to provide the basics of food and shelter, people generally want to do something that gives satisfaction and meaning to their life, and that is usually through their career. Witness, for example, the high levels of depression in unemployed people (despite their basic needs being covered by the state) and the voluntary work that many people devote themselves to after retiring. People generally like to be useful and feel that they are needed.
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
To be fair to Topping I think he’s made it clear that even though he’s ex army he is no expert on Ukraine war scenarios (see also Dura Ace) despite knowing the tactics of maybe an anti-tank infantry platoon as was from his days in the army. I think him having been in the army probably makes him less tolerant of people opining about military options when there are plenty of people who are making these decisions with all the info who cannot find a solution at present.
So when he reads ideas such as the Ukrainian forces driving through the south to cut off the Russian forces I’m guessing he, like I do, has a bit of a head/desk moment where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”. It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference.
So I understand your interest and wanting to dig into things, I think sometimes it’s hopecasting but I also get where Topping is coming from - however I might have got Topping’s position wrong and so am also guilty of opining on the internet about something where I’ve just picked up a few facts.
If you get a head/desk moment over that, I might suggest you invest in padded furniture.
... where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”
And they may do it. Or may not. If you disagree, instead of figuratively maiming furniture, let's discuss it.
" It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference."
There, that's good. I accept all that. In a few lines, you've done something that Topping's been unable to do: produce a reasonable critique. But there's another point: what you wrote makes it impossible to discuss any of this, as those are all unknowns, to us at least.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time.
No amount of cheaper childcare provision or more affordable housing will change that fundamentally
Do they 'want' careers? I'd suggest hardly anyone (the admirable Nick P excepted here) 'wants' a career. What people 'want' is a nice life. Which costs money. A career is for most people a means to an end. People don't put off children because they're having such fun slogging themselves to death in an office 11 hours a day. They do it because it's the only way they can afford a nice life. And I'm not saying effort shouldn't equal reward. But for the under 40s, the effort to reward ratio seems a lot less favourable than it was for my generation or the one before.
Plenty of lottery winners, not to mention the already rich, carry on working well after they have enough for a nice life. So yes a significant proportion of the population, but probably not a majority, do want some form of work/career.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Ha ha, I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life other than to say I have had nothing to complain about. Personally I think sex without love or the prospect of it seems like a rather empty experience. But if it's your thing nobody is stopping you, least of all me!
That's a old-fashioned view. Apparently sex parties are rife - especially in London. Proliferated during lockdown.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Believe it or not, some of us actually enjoy significant and prolonged emotional connection. We're not all like you, Leon.
I am with you on this. For all modern media culture celebrates the joy of no frills sex between strangers, I don't believe humans, in general, are wired to have no emotional connection with sex. Most people that have casual sex either (1) have to force themselves to emotionally distance themselves, and that messes up their ability to form secure attachment, (2) end up forming an attachment to their casual partners and then feel rejected and a degraded sense of self-worth afterwards when it doesn't go further, or (3) form an attachment and end up in a string of poor relationships with partners that they didn't vet properly, given they chose them on drunken night outs.
There are of course exceptions to this, but this is the general pattern I see. Among friends, there is a pretty clear correlation between those who had a lot of casual sex and those who were unable to hold down marriages and positive parent-child relationships later in life.
From a male point of view, and when you're young, casual sex seems an excellent idea. Especially with the availability of antibiotics. Emotions are for when you grow up.
The contraceptive pill brought in female equality.
Yet I expect times to change again. Not to a new Puritanism, but something more measured.
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
Being ex-Army gives me precisely zero insight into the Russian-Ukraine war. Aside from perhaps (perhaps) some tactical elements - eg spotting when a particular incident is or isn't likely to be the result of hand-held anti-tank weapons, or noting how a youtube clip of 30 Russian or Ukrainian soldiers debussing from an armoured vehicle is unlikely to be evidence of the decisive action of the conflict.
But the fact that I haven't made as many guesses as you have is imo a good thing not a bad thing.
Many people on here have made extended scenario analyses about what might or might not happen and I just don't see the value in it as it is wholly speculative. Or "guesses" as you call them.
But lest anyone think I am anti-free speech for heaven's sake carry on guessing. Just be aware that my eyebrows will ascend to the heavens each time. Not that should bother you an iota.
By all means, raise your eyebrows. But if you make statements in reply such as "pure fantasy" in response, please be willing to back them up. Which as this conversation has shown, you are not. Otherwise you come across a little like Father Jack, sitting in a shaded room muttering to yourself.
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
Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
is just one issue
Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time.
No amount of cheaper childcare provision or more affordable housing will change that fundamentally
Do they 'want' careers? I'd suggest hardly anyone (the admirable Nick P excepted here) 'wants' a career. What people 'want' is a nice life. Which costs money. A career is for most people a means to an end. People don't put off children because they're having such fun slogging themselves to death in an office 11 hours a day. They do it because it's the only way they can afford a nice life. And I'm not saying effort shouldn't equal reward. But for the under 40s, the effort to reward ratio seems a lot less favourable than it was for my generation or the one before.
The average graduate certainly does want a career.
A generation or so before 90-95%% of women did not go to university and most had married and had their first child by 25 let alone 30. Now 40%+ of women go to university and want careers first before having children, hence the age of first child and marriage in the UK is now over 30.
The biggest change to later motherhood is more going to university and more women in the workplace (plus longer average life expectancy), not childcare (which their grandparents and often their parents never had or even housing given 100 years ago most rented but still had their first child by 25)
In Taliban controlled Afghanistan by contrast the average age a mother has her first child is 19
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
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?
I say "carp from the sidelines" because your posts are just attack posts, containing no information. You say: "You're wrong!", without actually saying *why* I'm wrong. In fact, during this entire conversation I don't think you've added anything of substance.
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
To be fair to Topping I think he’s made it clear that even though he’s ex army he is no expert on Ukraine war scenarios (see also Dura Ace) despite knowing the tactics of maybe an anti-tank infantry platoon as was from his days in the army. I think him having been in the army probably makes him less tolerant of people opining about military options when there are plenty of people who are making these decisions with all the info who cannot find a solution at present.
So when he reads ideas such as the Ukrainian forces driving through the south to cut off the Russian forces I’m guessing he, like I do, has a bit of a head/desk moment where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”. It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference.
So I understand your interest and wanting to dig into things, I think sometimes it’s hopecasting but I also get where Topping is coming from - however I might have got Topping’s position wrong and so am also guilty of opining on the internet about something where I’ve just picked up a few facts.
If you get a head/desk moment over that, I might suggest you invest in padded furniture.
... where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”
And they may do it. Or may not. If you disagree, instead of figuratively maiming furniture, let's discuss it.
" It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference."
There, that's good. I accept all that. In a few lines, you've done something that Topping's been unable to do: produce a reasonable critique. But there's another point: what you wrote makes it impossible to discuss any of this, as those are all unknowns, to us at least.
I'm a solicitor. It does not follow from that I think only solicitors or barristers should express opinions on legal matters.
The same should apply to soldiers and military matters.
Of course, the solicitor/soldier is more likely to be well-informed than the lay observer.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
This is the opinion of a guy who thinks he's everyman.
@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
Only due to the ridiculousness of local government boundaries.
No, Rutland is its own county again now with its own unitary authority. Rutland is not in Leicestershire
Melton and Rutland constituency includes some Eastern Suburbs of Leicester.
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Ha ha, I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life other than to say I have had nothing to complain about. Personally I think sex without love or the prospect of it seems like a rather empty experience. But if it's your thing nobody is stopping you, least of all me!
That's a old-fashioned view. Apparently sex parties are rife - especially in London. Proliferated during lockdown.
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
That's like saying wages aren't the problem, productivity is, or vice-versa. The two are linked.
If housing levels are constrained then the BTL build-up reduces the supply of available houses as people hold onto homes they don't live in, and increases demand with aspiring BTL purchasers joining the market too, so both supply and demand are affected and prices go up.
If we had a free market in construction then more houses could get built to replace this supply and demand shift and people owning BTL properties could quite appropriately find themselves unable to find tenants as the prospective tenants would have better options elsewhere instead. That's what should be happening, but isn't and I can't see it happening any time soon.
Plus then it feeds into politics and planning whereby people with a property portfolio seek to have the rules rigged to ensure their property retains or increases its value and they're not left with empty property they can't let out so people are trapped renting from them instead.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Ha ha, I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life other than to say I have had nothing to complain about. Personally I think sex without love or the prospect of it seems like a rather empty experience. But if it's your thing nobody is stopping you, least of all me!
That's a old-fashioned view. Apparently sex parties are rife - especially in London. Proliferated during lockdown.
What an incredibly dull article. All the information in that could be contained in a paragraph that surmounts to "I hear some middle class people have sex parties."
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Ha ha, I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life other than to say I have had nothing to complain about. Personally I think sex without love or the prospect of it seems like a rather empty experience. But if it's your thing nobody is stopping you, least of all me!
That's a old-fashioned view. Apparently sex parties are rife - especially in London. Proliferated during lockdown.
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?
It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.
The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.
Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.
Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Ha ha, I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life other than to say I have had nothing to complain about. Personally I think sex without love or the prospect of it seems like a rather empty experience. But if it's your thing nobody is stopping you, least of all me!
That's a old-fashioned view. Apparently sex parties are rife - especially in London. Proliferated during lockdown.
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.
I do not take offence at Barty's comments in this context. It would be better for the housing market to be such that stability, whether from mortgaged house ownership or stable renting, can be achieved at a younger age, because that will enable couples to have children younger, which is a good thing.
That's different from saying an individual can't or shouldn't ever have a child at an older age, and does not imply criticism of such an individual's decisions.
The conflation of the two types of points, a societal desirability point and a (preferably informed) personal choice point is a massive barrier to achieving of tolerant society on all sorts of issues.
It is desirable to set up society for couples to be able to have children earlier, it is desirable for children to be brought up in stable housing situations (too many at the poor end suffer badly from peripaticity), it is desirable that the risks of late childbirth are well known (and I always knew my primary job as a birth partner was to do everything I possible could to ensure a safe birth and shout out if needed, having the birth partner "experience" was way down the list), it is not desirable for the NHS to treat older mothers with disrespect and simply as "a risk" to be managed or a(nother) burden which is often the spill over consequence when, even though despite the risks being much higher, they start from a low base and the vast majority of older pregnancies at the individual level end in mother and baby doing well and without long term health consequences for either.
I do not know why so many can't get their head around such distinctions.
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
Abortion, divorce, homosexuality, gay marriage, sex before marriage, adultery etc are all now legal so it really doesn't matter what the religious groups you mention think anymore. It only affects themselves these days, which is exactly as it should be.
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?
It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.
The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.
Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.
Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.
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.
This is the opinion of a man unable to actually get casual sex
I have no interest in getting casual sex, I'm married!
What is it about casual sex that you object to?
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
Ha ha, I'm not going to go into the details of my sex life other than to say I have had nothing to complain about. Personally I think sex without love or the prospect of it seems like a rather empty experience. But if it's your thing nobody is stopping you, least of all me!
That's a old-fashioned view. Apparently sex parties are rife - especially in London. Proliferated during lockdown.
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?
It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.
The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.
Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.
Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.
Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.
Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)
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
Abortion, divorce, homosexuality, gay marriage, sex before marriage, adultery etc are all now legal so it really doesn't matter what the religious groups you mention think anymore. It only affects themselves these days, which is exactly as it should be.
Sex before marriage and adultery have always been legal in the UK, divorce has been legal for most since the 19th century (with adultery a grounds), abortion and homosexuality have been legal since the 1960s. Even homosexual marriage has been legal for 10 years.
However for the very religious all the above remain morally wrong, yes
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?
It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.
The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.
Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.
Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.
Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.
Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)
Bullshit.
When was the last time you tried to buy a home up North on a Northern wage? Or tried to rent one?
Housing is a problem across the entire country. That its a more severe problem in London doesn't make it not a problem elsewhere.
Its like cancer. Just because someone else as a stage 4 terminal diagnosis doesn't mean that someone else with cancer should ignore it because they're better off. Quite the opposite in fact.
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.
Another good post – Jessop aspires to being king of the PB Toy Soldiers. The spectacle really makes one grit one's teeth.
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?
It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.
The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.
Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.
Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.
Again this is mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home counties problem.
Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)
Bullshit.
When was the last time you tried to buy a home up North on a Northern wage? Or tried to rent one?
Housing is a problem across the entire country. That its a more severe problem in London doesn't make it not a problem elsewhere.
Its like cancer. Just because someone else as a stage 4 terminal diagnosis doesn't mean that someone else with cancer should ignore it because they're better off. Quite the opposite in fact.
I could probably buy 2 homes on my current wage up North rather than the one we have bought near Epping for the same price. I could probably have rented 2 flats in Manchester or Newcastle or Sunderland for the price I paid to rent 1 flat in Epping near the tube.
The facts are clear, UK wide 66% own property with a mortgage or outright. In inner London however just 42% own property with a mortgage or outright
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.
YOu really are dumb, young people have always struggled to buy houses, it was mainlky social housing till Thatcher sold them off dirt cheap and caused the boom for Tory toffs to build up BTL portfolios and rip off the public purse. Just a transfer of the value of eth public housing stock to a handful of Tories.
Young people have not always struggled to buy houses, relative to today, that is factually incorrect and betrays your ignorance.
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
The BTL build up isn't the problem. It' the price of housing.
BTL is in part driving the price of housing, though, is it not?
It's more a side effect of the increasing prices. The classic is "he bought a flat in London, back in the day, she did the same". They get married, buy a house by extracting value, and rent out the flats. Because the rises in house prices make keeping property forever the best plan.
The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.
Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.
Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.
Precisely this. Build!
Build on smaller and smaller land parcels? Or eat up the areas between towns and villages? And also have even more people using our transport network with busier and busier London interchanges?
Sadly we have got to the point where we have to do this, but it is not a simple answer and it comes with its own costs. What is ridiculous is when it is treated like a magic answer by people that advocate for continuing to ramp up our population based on more low wage workers. People that will consumer more government services than they pay in tax, and thus won't be net contributors to funding all this new infrastructure.
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
Abortion, divorce, homosexuality, gay marriage, sex before marriage, adultery etc are all now legal so it really doesn't matter what the religious groups you mention think anymore. It only affects themselves these days, which is exactly as it should be.
Sex before marriage and adultery have always been legal in the UK, divorce has been legal for most since the 19th century (with adultery a grounds), abortion and homosexuality have been legal since the 1960s. Even homosexual marriage has been legal for 10 years.
However for the very religious all the above remain morally wrong, yes
They are free to believe in spaghetti monsters if they wish as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on others.
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.
Another good post – Jessop aspires to being king of the PB Toy Soldiers. The spectacle really makes one grit one's teeth.
Better a toy soldier than an appeasing enabler of Russian genocide.
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
Abortion, divorce, homosexuality, gay marriage, sex before marriage, adultery etc are all now legal so it really doesn't matter what the religious groups you mention think anymore. It only affects themselves these days, which is exactly as it should be.
Sex before marriage and adultery have always been legal in the UK, divorce has been legal for most since the 19th century (with adultery a grounds), abortion and homosexuality have been legal since the 1960s. Even homosexual marriage has been legal for 10 years.
However for the very religious all the above remain morally wrong, yes
They are free to believe in spaghetti monsters if they wish as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on others.
In a free country if they get elected to Parliament and try to vote to make those things illegal they are entitled to do so, however they are unlikely to be able to persuade a majority in Parliament to support them to do that
Can't believe I'm banging on about the Ukraine war with 1st PB Armchair Brigade while there is a discussion about casual sex going on at the same time.
Talk about messed up priorities.
"Casual sex educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man (or man measures woman, if you prefer it that way!)."
Comments
I freely admit that the scenario I gave above may not - and even probably will not - happen. But it's a better guess than the non-existent ones you have given us. It's a position we can discuss and argue - but that's not what you're doing.
I believe you're ex-army, in which case you're probably sitting there thinking you're an expert compared to me. And you may be, but there's no sign of expertise, or even intelligence, in your replies.
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 warnext election, 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 election.
So you are saying that his is an expert trends-and-intelligence analyst?
Talk about messed up priorities.
Just expect to be called out about it.
Plus if I was picky I'd say that if nothing else, opinion polls provide a vaguely correlated shadow control example of future elections and hence there is something to go on in that regard. But/and we know what we all think of opinion polls.
I certainly hope that the West will provide support sufficient for Ukraine to regain its lost territory and people, but until Ukraine does so it's still arguable whether that support is being provided.
So when he reads ideas such as the Ukrainian forces driving through the south to cut off the Russian forces I’m guessing he, like I do, has a bit of a head/desk moment where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”. It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference.
So I understand your interest and wanting to dig into things, I think sometimes it’s hopecasting but I also get where Topping is coming from - however I might have got Topping’s position wrong and so am also guilty of opining on the internet about something where I’ve just picked up a few facts.
Think about that.
And there are a number of other risks, including death of the mother, which similarly escalate with age.
You don't need to be on the front lines to take a look at the logistical issues facing both sides. Indeed being detached from the frontline can aid in stepping back and taking an overview.
Yes the future isn't certain, but no that does not mean all possibilities are equally likely.
Russia has severe logistical constraints, that's been clear since very early in this war, which is why many of us were able to see that the forecast Russian rollover of Ukraine wouldn't happen - and that Ukrainian counteradvances would be quite plausible.
What happens next can't be certain, but that doesn't mean we can't have an intelligent conversation and discuss possibilities or probabilities.
But the fact that I haven't made as many guesses as you have is imo a good thing not a bad thing.
Many people on here have made extended scenario analyses about what might or might not happen and I just don't see the value in it as it is wholly speculative. Or "guesses" as you call them.
But lest anyone think I am anti-free speech for heaven's sake carry on guessing. Just be aware that my eyebrows will ascend to the heavens each time. Not that should bother you an iota.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/03/07/fintan-otoole-there-will-be-no-westminster-revolt-over-the-windsor-framework/
Worth paying for in full (in my view), but I hope I don't break any particular rule by reproducing the delightful final sentence.
"Brexit has become tedious, and within that zone of exquisite monotony there is a VIP area of mind-numbing ennui reserved for its effects on Northern Ireland."
You won't stop middle class women with degrees
wanting high flying careers in their 20s or even most of their 30s and only considering having children in their late 30s and early 40s with that
100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time.
No amount of cheaper childcare provision or more affordable housing will change that fundamentally
If there is a forthcoming general election there is nowhere better than PB to work out what is going on although I have mentioned several times that people talk about the "betting markets" knowing this or that outcome when we on PB do do this *a lot* and we have no idea of the eventual outcome so how come the "betting markets" all of a sudden know.
If there is a war, however, and assuming we're not lined up shoulder to shoulder on the start line waiting for someone to blow the whistle, then I think PB is a less than useless resource and I'd rather listen to a podcast.
But I think people can work out my position so I'll leave it there.
Now, about this casual sex we're all entitled to...
They were managing very comfortably. Now they have provided us with Great-Grandchild One, and they are carefully balancing the maternity/paternity leaves they are allowed.
If we make it impossible, or very difficult, for people like them to live in Southeast Essex, or elsewhere in the outer London area what sort of society are we going to have?
There were people on here last summer - I won't name names, as I can't be arsed to go and check the threads to find out - who were looking at the incremental gains the Russians made in taking Izyum, Severodonetsk and Popasna, and projecting that forward to inevitable Russian victory over the following several years. Then there were others of us who argued otherwise, that the Russian advance would "run out of steam"
Who was right?
Of course there is IVF. But IVF is very, very expensive and a very unpleasant experience. And works, what, about 1 time in 5?
We shouldn't, as a society, be organising ourselves in a way where having children is left until after it is biologically straightforward to do so.
Thanks for proving my point there is still plenty of affordable property to buy in the Home counties if you are willing to look beyond London
Is it the horrendous idea that two adult consenting people might enjoy intense/amusing/kinky/frivolous physical intimacy without the laborious need for any more significant or prolonged emotional connection? Is it the fact they might both have a really good time (or not, but you always take risk) and want to do it again with someone else who is also hot?
Or is it the fact that you basically never got any, as a young man, and this REALLY fucks you off?
I suspect the latter
However you've missed the you've missed the bit where they were able to buy a house because they had both incomes.
Now they've only one it's more difficult.
And I'm not saying effort shouldn't equal reward. But for the under 40s, the effort to reward ratio seems a lot less favourable than it was for my generation or the one before.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64872623
A generation or so before 90-95%% of women did not go to university and most had married and had their first child by 25 let alone 30. Now 40%+ of women go to university and want careers first before having children, hence the age of first child and marriage in the UK is now over 30.
The biggest change to later motherhood is more going to university and more women in the workplace (plus longer average life expectancy), not childcare (which their grandparents and often their parents never had or even housing given 100 years ago most rented but still had their first child by 25)
The BTL buildup that happened under Blair/Brown onwards is very problematic and needs addressing whether it be via taxation or failing that via extending Right to Buy to BTL tenants.
... where one thinks “I’m sure if they could do they they would do that”
And they may do it. Or may not. If you disagree, instead of figuratively maiming furniture, let's discuss it.
" It’s the old no plan survives contact with the enemy/no plan survives a smack in the face situation and looking at a map might suggest it’s a plan but the fact is we don’t know what troops each side have where and then small matters of geography and terrain which make a massive difference."
There, that's good. I accept all that. In a few lines, you've done something that Topping's been unable to do: produce a reasonable critique. But there's another point: what you wrote makes it impossible to discuss any of this, as those are all unknowns, to us at least.
https://thespectator.com/life/beware-sex-party-bores-millennials-orgies/
There are of course exceptions to this, but this is the general pattern I see. Among friends, there is a pretty clear correlation between those who had a lot of casual sex and those who were unable to hold down marriages and positive parent-child relationships later in life.
From a male point of view, and when you're young, casual sex seems an excellent idea. Especially with the availability of antibiotics. Emotions are for when you grow up.
The contraceptive pill brought in female equality.
Yet I expect times to change again. Not to a new Puritanism, but something more measured.
https://photius.com/rankings/2020/population/mothers_mean_age_at_first_birth_2020_0.html
The same should apply to soldiers and military matters.
Of course, the solicitor/soldier is more likely to be well-informed than the lay observer.
If housing levels are constrained then the BTL build-up reduces the supply of available houses as people hold onto homes they don't live in, and increases demand with aspiring BTL purchasers joining the market too, so both supply and demand are affected and prices go up.
If we had a free market in construction then more houses could get built to replace this supply and demand shift and people owning BTL properties could quite appropriately find themselves unable to find tenants as the prospective tenants would have better options elsewhere instead. That's what should be happening, but isn't and I can't see it happening any time soon.
Plus then it feeds into politics and planning whereby people with a property portfolio seek to have the rules rigged to ensure their property retains or increases its value and they're not left with empty property they can't let out so people are trapped renting from them instead.
The problem isn't really people owning and renting flats. It's the prices and the constrained supply meaning that every shitbox can be rented out, no matter how bad, at a high price.
Imagine if the price of renting a house in the London suburbs was, say £250 a month for a 3 bedroom house. No one would give a shit about house prices/rents. Or who owned them.
Rent vs Ownership - it's just pushing the same pile of beans about. What we need is a lot more beans.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/07/uefa-to-refund-liverpool-fans-for-tickets-after-champions-league-final-chaos
That's different from saying an individual can't or shouldn't ever have a child at an older age, and does not imply criticism of such an individual's decisions.
The conflation of the two types of points, a societal desirability point and a (preferably informed) personal choice point is a massive barrier to achieving of tolerant society on all sorts of issues.
It is desirable to set up society for couples to be able to have children earlier, it is desirable for children to be brought up in stable housing situations (too many at the poor end suffer badly from peripaticity), it is desirable that the risks of late childbirth are well known (and I always knew my primary job as a birth partner was to do everything I possible could to ensure a safe birth and shout out if needed, having the birth partner "experience" was way down the list), it is not desirable for the NHS to treat older mothers with disrespect and simply as "a risk" to be managed or a(nother) burden which is often the spill over consequence when, even though despite the risks being much higher, they start from a low base and the vast majority of older pregnancies at the individual level end in mother and baby doing well and without long term health consequences for either.
I do not know why so many can't get their head around such distinctions.
Go north of Watford and property prices and rents are far cheaper (though even in parts of Outer London and the Home counties like Dagenham or Bexley or East Kent or South Essex outside Brentwood and Epping Forest property prices are far cheaper)
However for the very religious all the above remain morally wrong, yes
When was the last time you tried to buy a home up North on a Northern wage? Or tried to rent one?
Housing is a problem across the entire country. That its a more severe problem in London doesn't make it not a problem elsewhere.
Its like cancer. Just because someone else as a stage 4 terminal diagnosis doesn't mean that someone else with cancer should ignore it because they're better off. Quite the opposite in fact.
The facts are clear, UK wide 66% own property with a mortgage or outright. In inner London however just 42% own property with a mortgage or outright
Sadly we have got to the point where we have to do this, but it is not a simple answer and it comes with its own costs. What is ridiculous is when it is treated like a magic answer by people that advocate for continuing to ramp up our population based on more low wage workers. People that will consumer more government services than they pay in tax, and thus won't be net contributors to funding all this new infrastructure.