Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Will George Galloway be purring tonight? – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371

    .

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    You were talking about “the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years”. I don’t think that’s going to affect your “immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me”, or indeed even “humans in general” (we will have long evolved into a different species by then).
    Maybe the sun dying was a tongue-in-cheek remark that had nothing whatsoever to do with the other post? ok never mind.
    And you thought my reply about super-intelligent, giant cockroaches was to be taken seriously???
    Umm no, why?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 29
    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,794
    Mortimer said:

    DavidL said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status

    Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
    🙂

    But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.

    Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.

    Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
    Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.

    Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
    But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?

    Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.

    Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
    There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.

    Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.

    I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
    Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...

    • Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.

    • Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.

    • Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.

    • Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.

    • Stop the boats - :shrug:

    He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
    Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
    The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.

    Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
    Why would he bother? It would be as pointless me issuing my plans for managing the England football team to world cup glory in 2026.
    That's like saying why bother fighting hopeless or safe seats.

    If you don't seriously aspire to govern you risk not even motivating your base to come out.
    They're not going to come out.

    A good 75% of the ACTIVISTS in my local party are not feeling motivated. God only knows what the voter base is like.

    If only we had a year of polls showing Sunak is a failed leader, some on the backbenches might make a move...
    The trouble is that Sunak comes across as the school swat.
    One of the many problems.

    The others being:

    - terrible policy
    - not being good at politics

    Honestly, I do not know why he is still in place....
    Have you looked at the alternatives? Jeez.
    Yep! I'd take Mrs May over Sunak....
    I occasionally take soundings from my c(C)onservative family members and other friends and they are all, I think without exception, anti-Sunak.

    They say, on one hand, that Johnson should never have gone (and blame Sunak for it) and on the other hand that Johnson had to go because of the parties. A befuddled bunch.

    They are looking for a new Thatcher. A strong leader. Braverman is mentioned. Maybe Badenoch or Patel. They dislike Starmer but not as much as they dislike the LP generally.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,559

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    Your stance makes no sense though. Reducing the human population through lower birth rates doesn't mean killing off any of today's living human beings. None of the list of who you care about will be affected by that.
    Huh? What do you think my 'stance' is?

    I don't think the "planet being substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years" is a good thing for the billions of humans who are going to be around for the next couple of hundred years. I'm all in favour of the human population stabilising and slowly reducing. But a very rapid reduction would be pretty bad news for most humans in the short/medium term.
    I’ve not seen any evidence that a “very rapid reduction” is particularly likely. There’s a low fertility rate in South Korea, but South Korea is just one part of the world.
    China's birthrate is just over 1, half the rate needed for stability. More or less nowhere is Europe is at replacement levels. The UK level has indeed fallen fast, from 2.1 to 1.5 in just a few years.
    And the global population is still increasing at a substantial rate.
    Mostly that's a lag effect. It takes a few decades after the number of children being born peaks for the total population to do the same, because the oldest generation dying off is still much smaller.

    There's a lot of media in population dynamics so that, by the time you can see a trend in the overall numbers it takes a lot of time to change direction.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,240
    kamski said:

    NY Times on Arab voters in Michigan.

    If you have bet on Biden this is a very worrying piece...



    "Muslims represent only around 1 percent of the overall electorate, but Awad believes there are enough Muslim voters in Michigan and Georgia, two swing states, to make it nearly impossible for Biden to win re-election without their support."

    "For some voters, this isn’t just a policy dispute. It’s a moral mission, and the mark of victory is a Biden defeat. The question now is, how large is that constituency?"

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/opinion/voters-michigan-biden-gaza.html

    That gives Biden nine months to get a ceasefire and leak to the press about American diplomacy. It should not take that long.
    Surely Biden's got very little chance in Georgia anyway? It doesn't help to lose Muslim votes in Michigan, but there must be loads of other demographic micro-groups which have more than 1 percent of the electorate...
    "very little chance in Georgia"

    Well he won it last time round. Atlanta was a very very strong city for him.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,221
    edited February 29
    Leon said:

    One of the worst airport lounges I have been to was Kenya Air at Nairobi

    The airport was crowded, smelly and hideous so I headed to the lounge with great vigour, only to discover that the "lounge" was the size of a garden shed, and it was even more smelly crowded and hideous than the airport. and the only "free stuff" was a machine pumping out cold drinks and people were actually FIGHTING over the chance to use it

    I retreated to some corridor and sat on my bags

    Always fly from Barra. None of these problems arise. And they have more scheduled flights than the whole of North Korea. Delays sometimes when the tide is in.

    https://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    Your stance makes no sense though. Reducing the human population through lower birth rates doesn't mean killing off any of today's living human beings. None of the list of who you care about will be affected by that.
    Huh? What do you think my 'stance' is?

    I don't think the "planet being substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years" is a good thing for the billions of humans who are going to be around for the next couple of hundred years. I'm all in favour of the human population stabilising and slowly reducing. But a very rapid reduction would be pretty bad news for most humans in the short/medium term.
    I’ve not seen any evidence that a “very rapid reduction” is particularly likely. There’s a low fertility rate in South Korea, but South Korea is just one part of the world.
    Sure, my remarks were directed at SandyRentool (thought this was clear as I replied to Sandy or quoted/referred to Sandy in every one of my posts above) who said the South Korean fertility rate was

    'A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.'

    That is what I disagree with, not sure what you think about it.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,794
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    I don't have a great deal of concern for humans who will never exist. Which actually represents the vast, vast majority of potential humans, past, present and future.
    Why are you bringing 'humans who will never exist' into it???? Bonkers.

    You sound like you don't have a great deal of concern about humans who do exist.
    Out of interest, do you have more concern about humans you don't know and never will elsewhere in the world or endangered non-humans animals such as mountain gorillas and blue whales? Just curious.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,794
    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    You are trying to lay logic onto the befuddled left.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762
    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    Me, going to long covid fitness assessment test at 10am this morning: Sure, long covid is bad, but I'm sure I'll feel fine after this

    Me, after doing a fast walk / light jog version of the bleep test that was like 10 minutes long, max: I want to die and go to sleep and my brain isn't working, why why why why...

    Can be a long haul.

    I was lucky; I just lost my sense of taste/smell for a couple of years.

    Don't try to rush recovery is the advice, from what I can gather.
    Remember everyone: practicing sniffing strong smells can help speed up recovery from anosmia. This has been your public health information broadcast for the day.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    Your stance makes no sense though. Reducing the human population through lower birth rates doesn't mean killing off any of today's living human beings. None of the list of who you care about will be affected by that.
    Huh? What do you think my 'stance' is?

    I don't think the "planet being substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years" is a good thing for the billions of humans who are going to be around for the next couple of hundred years. I'm all in favour of the human population stabilising and slowly reducing. But a very rapid reduction would be pretty bad news for most humans in the short/medium term.
    I’ve not seen any evidence that a “very rapid reduction” is particularly likely. There’s a low fertility rate in South Korea, but South Korea is just one part of the world.
    China's birthrate is just over 1, half the rate needed for stability. More or less nowhere is Europe is at replacement levels. The UK level has indeed fallen fast, from 2.1 to 1.5 in just a few years.
    And the global population is still increasing at a substantial rate.
    Mostly that's a lag effect. It takes a few decades after the number of children being born peaks for the total population to do the same, because the oldest generation dying off is still much smaller.

    There's a lot of media in population dynamics so that, by the time you can see a trend in the overall numbers it takes a lot of time to change direction.
    Yeah, it's been said for a while that (with increased education and access to healthcare) that global population is likely to plateau around around 11 billion (if that), which is a lot more than currently but (if we decided to sort resources more equitably) not an amount that necessitates Malthusian pessimism.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    1. The Angiolini Report on how Wayne Couzens became & remained a police officer despite numerous reports of criminal behaviour & other red flags. From the Foreword: "It also remains the case that women in public spaces are at risk from those men who choose to predate upon them." The Report hopes that those in authority in all police forces (not just the Met) will read the Report.

    2. This is not just about exceptionally awful cases such as Carrick & Couzens. See Jeff Mitchell - https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/24134622.met-police-officer-convicted-kidnap-rape-rape-child/. Like Couzens there was an earlier opportunity to catch him, which was missed.

    3. Or there's the HMIC Report earlier this month on the Met's handling of child sexual exploitation, described as ineffective and leaving children - overwhelmingly girls - vulnerable to sexual exploitation. https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/metropolitan-police-leaving-vulnerable-children-at-risk-of-exploitation/

    4. Today in Parliament the debate for International Women's Day has been brought forward because of the Budget. Jess Phillips reads out the list of ca. 100 women murdered in the U.K. by a man in 2023. The names are collected by the Femicide Census: on average since the end of 2009, 140 women have been killed by men every year. That’s an average of two women dead at the hands of a man, every 5 days. Most occur in a domestic setting.

    So it's not just "public spaces" then.

    5. Staffordshire Police have done some "hate crime" training in which they were told that "Women who take measures to protect themselves against unfamiliar men are subject to flawed unconscious bias and, therefore, similar to racists." Memo to Staffs Police - see point 1.

    6. Abuse of women MPs has become worse and is driving women away. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/misogyny-in-westminster-is-driving-women-out-of-politics-mps-warn-q0wf9b96q

    "The irony is that the more women you get, the more it triggers some men who whilst they can blot out of their ears a couple of women, somehow it feels like an assault on them to actually have to listen to a number of women in authority talking confidently, and they then do a backlash. So really it’s part of fighting back against the backlash that comes when you make progress …"

    Not just In Westminster.

    7. And, finally, just to make this comment vaguely on topic, George Galloway, a man who said that you don't need consent for every "insertion" (his words) - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783 - because a lack of consent is merely bad sexual etiquette not rape - may well be elected an MP for Rochdale, a town usually in the public eye either because of grooming gangs or the revolting personal behaviour of its MPs.

    Perhaps these are just coincidences. Or one of those "moral panics" or "culture wars" used to dismiss those raising such concerns. Or, I dunno, perhaps there are some underlying reasons linking and explaining all these matters.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,492
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the worst airport lounges I have been to was Kenya Air at Nairobi

    The airport was crowded, smelly and hideous so I headed to the lounge with great vigour, only to discover that the "lounge" was the size of a garden shed, and it was even more smelly crowded and hideous than the airport. and the only "free stuff" was a machine pumping out cold drinks and people were actually FIGHTING over the chance to use it

    I retreated to some corridor and sat on my bags

    Always fly from Barra. None of these problems arise. And they have more scheduled flights than the whole of North Korea. Delays sometimes when the tide is in.

    https://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport
    Brilliant. I've always wanted to fly in or out of there!

    I love the mad airports in the Scottish islands

    The craziest I've done is probably Foula "airport", which consists of a small shed and a grass landing strip, right by enormous cliffs, and there is nearly always a wind, sometimes brutal wind

    Scary but exciting
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762
    kamski said:

    .

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    You were talking about “the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years”. I don’t think that’s going to affect your “immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me”, or indeed even “humans in general” (we will have long evolved into a different species by then).
    Maybe the sun dying was a tongue-in-cheek remark that had nothing whatsoever to do with the other post? ok never mind.
    And you thought my reply about super-intelligent, giant cockroaches was to be taken seriously???
    Umm no, why?
    Because that's what you were replying to...????
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,917

    IanB2 said:

    Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status

    Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
    🙂

    But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.

    Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.

    Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
    Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.

    Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
    But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?

    Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.

    Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
    There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.

    Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.

    I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
    Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...

    • Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.

    • Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.

    • Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.

    • Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.

    • Stop the boats - :shrug:

    He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
    There remains a massive disconnect between the official statists and how people feel. In the next six months there’s likely to be a million remortgages, and none of those people are going to feel better off as a result.

    The correct answer is May, because things are almost certainly not getting any better in practice, even if they do in theory.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371
    Stocky said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    I don't have a great deal of concern for humans who will never exist. Which actually represents the vast, vast majority of potential humans, past, present and future.
    Why are you bringing 'humans who will never exist' into it???? Bonkers.

    You sound like you don't have a great deal of concern about humans who do exist.
    Out of interest, do you have more concern about humans you don't know and never will elsewhere in the world or endangered non-humans animals such as mountain gorillas and blue whales? Just curious.
    Before answering, I feel that mountain gorillas and blue whales and blue whales are way closer to humans than most life forms on earth, so in that sense your choice of non-human animals is quite human-centred.

    Also, I tend to believe that the things we need to do to save those species are also good for humans.

    But apart from that the question is quite difficult to answer, but if it was a choice between humans becoming extinct or mountain gorillas and blue whales becoming extinct, I would lose the gorillas and whales. Even if humans are the species wrecking the planet and the others aren't.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 29
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    Yes, I know all that, hence I asked under which circumstances could other races or religions be asked not to attend plays. Surprisingly, the answer was ‘Muslims be asked not to attend a play about South Yorkshire Grooming Gangs” which is as bad as what the writer of Slave Play has done, although it is a great publicity stunt to get his work in the news, the intent all along no doubt
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371

    kamski said:

    .

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    You were talking about “the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years”. I don’t think that’s going to affect your “immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me”, or indeed even “humans in general” (we will have long evolved into a different species by then).
    Maybe the sun dying was a tongue-in-cheek remark that had nothing whatsoever to do with the other post? ok never mind.
    And you thought my reply about super-intelligent, giant cockroaches was to be taken seriously???
    Umm no, why?
    Because that's what you were replying to...????
    My reply was explicitly about SandyRentool NOT about cockroaches.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,888
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762
    kamski said:

    Stocky said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    I don't have a great deal of concern for humans who will never exist. Which actually represents the vast, vast majority of potential humans, past, present and future.
    Why are you bringing 'humans who will never exist' into it???? Bonkers.

    You sound like you don't have a great deal of concern about humans who do exist.
    Out of interest, do you have more concern about humans you don't know and never will elsewhere in the world or endangered non-humans animals such as mountain gorillas and blue whales? Just curious.
    Before answering, I feel that mountain gorillas and blue whales and blue whales are way closer to humans than most life forms on earth, so in that sense your choice of non-human animals is quite human-centred.

    Also, I tend to believe that the things we need to do to save those species are also good for humans.

    But apart from that the question is quite difficult to answer, but if it was a choice between humans becoming extinct or mountain gorillas and blue whales becoming extinct, I would lose the gorillas and whales. Even if humans are the species wrecking the planet and the others aren't.
    If it's a choice between humans becoming extinct or bondegezous becoming extinct, I would lose the humans. Fortunately, it's not!
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,255
    Surprised so much discussion on declining birth rates and no one has mentioned age extension tech. It might not come soon enough for 60 year old Aubrey de Grey but if we’re looking at what things are like in 2124, I’d be amazed if it’s not the major determinant of the demographic pyramid. Also we may have defined robots as non human persons by then too…
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,559
    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    Your stance makes no sense though. Reducing the human population through lower birth rates doesn't mean killing off any of today's living human beings. None of the list of who you care about will be affected by that.
    Huh? What do you think my 'stance' is?

    I don't think the "planet being substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years" is a good thing for the billions of humans who are going to be around for the next couple of hundred years. I'm all in favour of the human population stabilising and slowly reducing. But a very rapid reduction would be pretty bad news for most humans in the short/medium term.
    I’ve not seen any evidence that a “very rapid reduction” is particularly likely. There’s a low fertility rate in South Korea, but South Korea is just one part of the world.
    China's birthrate is just over 1, half the rate needed for stability. More or less nowhere is Europe is at replacement levels. The UK level has indeed fallen fast, from 2.1 to 1.5 in just a few years.
    And the global population is still increasing at a substantial rate.
    Mostly that's a lag effect. It takes a few decades after the number of children being born peaks for the total population to do the same, because the oldest generation dying off is still much smaller.

    There's a lot of media in population dynamics so that, by the time you can see a trend in the overall numbers it takes a lot of time to change direction.
    Yeah, it's been said for a while that (with increased education and access to healthcare) that global population is likely to plateau around around 11 billion (if that), which is a lot more than currently but (if we decided to sort resources more equitably) not an amount that necessitates Malthusian pessimism.
    The population isn't going to plateau. The world's economy and culture will have a bit of a shock later the century when the global population starts to decline.

    Capitalism really isn't built for a declining population, and any economic system will struggle with the demographic inversion. The debt overhang could get very nasty.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,466
    Cyclefree said:

    1. The Angiolini Report on how Wayne Couzens became & remained a police officer despite numerous reports of criminal behaviour & other red flags. From the Foreword: "It also remains the case that women in public spaces are at risk from those men who choose to predate upon them." The Report hopes that those in authority in all police forces (not just the Met) will read the Report.

    2. This is not just about exceptionally awful cases such as Carrick & Couzens. See Jeff Mitchell - https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/24134622.met-police-officer-convicted-kidnap-rape-rape-child/. Like Couzens there was an earlier opportunity to catch him, which was missed.

    3. Or there's the HMIC Report earlier this month on the Met's handling of child sexual exploitation, described as ineffective and leaving children - overwhelmingly girls - vulnerable to sexual exploitation. https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/metropolitan-police-leaving-vulnerable-children-at-risk-of-exploitation/

    4. Today in Parliament the debate for International Women's Day has been brought forward because of the Budget. Jess Phillips reads out the list of ca. 100 women murdered in the U.K. by a man in 2023. The names are collected by the Femicide Census: on average since the end of 2009, 140 women have been killed by men every year. That’s an average of two women dead at the hands of a man, every 5 days. Most occur in a domestic setting.

    So it's not just "public spaces" then.

    5. Staffordshire Police have done some "hate crime" training in which they were told that "Women who take measures to protect themselves against unfamiliar men are subject to flawed unconscious bias and, therefore, similar to racists." Memo to Staffs Police - see point 1.

    6. Abuse of women MPs has become worse and is driving women away. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/misogyny-in-westminster-is-driving-women-out-of-politics-mps-warn-q0wf9b96q

    "The irony is that the more women you get, the more it triggers some men who whilst they can blot out of their ears a couple of women, somehow it feels like an assault on them to actually have to listen to a number of women in authority talking confidently, and they then do a backlash. So really it’s part of fighting back against the backlash that comes when you make progress …"

    Not just In Westminster.

    7. And, finally, just to make this comment vaguely on topic, George Galloway, a man who said that you don't need consent for every "insertion" (his words) - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783 - because a lack of consent is merely bad sexual etiquette not rape - may well be elected an MP for Rochdale, a town usually in the public eye either because of grooming gangs or the revolting personal behaviour of its MPs.

    Perhaps these are just coincidences. Or one of those "moral panics" or "culture wars" used to dismiss those raising such concerns. Or, I dunno, perhaps there are some underlying reasons linking and explaining all these matters.

    See also reported this morning.

    Women were 'not believed' on Emma Caldwell killer warnings
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-68304932
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,629
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    More about creating public row as advertising, I reckon.

    The Telegraph did a thing a few years back, where they paid for people to go to plays, opera and ballet, who wouldn't normally go. The universal response they got was "We didn't know we didn't need to dress up" and for plays "Had no idea it was that cheap" with quite a lot of "We didn't think it was for the likes of us"

    Tickets for Shakespeare at The Globe can start from a fiver, incidentally....
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    .

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    You were talking about “the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years”. I don’t think that’s going to affect your “immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me”, or indeed even “humans in general” (we will have long evolved into a different species by then).
    Maybe the sun dying was a tongue-in-cheek remark that had nothing whatsoever to do with the other post? ok never mind.
    And you thought my reply about super-intelligent, giant cockroaches was to be taken seriously???
    Umm no, why?
    Because that's what you were replying to...????
    My reply was explicitly about SandyRentool NOT about cockroaches.
    Do we have a quote of the month competition on PB? Because I'd like to nominate that.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,413
    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    Back in my student days the FemSoc did a showing of 'The Accused' from which men were excluded. That caused a bit of a fuss at the time. I don't think the word safe space existed then, but the reason given was to protect female audience members from (I quote the FemSoc president) 'voyeuristic males who wanted to see her knickers get ripped off'.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,446
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 48,083
    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the worst airport lounges I have been to was Kenya Air at Nairobi

    The airport was crowded, smelly and hideous so I headed to the lounge with great vigour, only to discover that the "lounge" was the size of a garden shed, and it was even more smelly crowded and hideous than the airport. and the only "free stuff" was a machine pumping out cold drinks and people were actually FIGHTING over the chance to use it

    I retreated to some corridor and sat on my bags

    Always fly from Barra. None of these problems arise. And they have more scheduled flights than the whole of North Korea. Delays sometimes when the tide is in.

    https://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport
    Brilliant. I've always wanted to fly in or out of there!

    I love the mad airports in the Scottish islands

    The craziest I've done is probably Foula "airport", which consists of a small shed and a grass landing strip, right by enormous cliffs, and there is nearly always a wind, sometimes brutal wind

    Scary but exciting
    St Mary’s in the Scillies is quite exciting; on the approach you get well buffeted about by the wind; the first two thirds of the runway is gently uphill and if you don’t stop the plane by then, you go over the hump and there’s a short downhill stretch ending at the clifftop.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,888

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    Another one who hasn't been to the theatre recently.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918
    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    I’m posting this simply to illustrate that many of us travel all over the world, including in business, without the need of clogging up this political betting website with irrevelant travelogues.

    Hypocrisy and irony? No because of the intent …

    Have a nice day everyone and let’s hope GG does not win tonight. Whatever one’s persuasion he is simply an awful little man.








    You need to work on your angles. Put your glass of bubbles in the front of the photo, to give it life and scale, and you've posted too many photos of the same scene

    But a modestly promising start
    Needs a dog for scale though.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 48,083
    I reckon it will soon be confirmed that for some, quite possibly much, of the UK this has been the wettest February ever recorded.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    .

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    You were talking about “the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years”. I don’t think that’s going to affect your “immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me”, or indeed even “humans in general” (we will have long evolved into a different species by then).
    Maybe the sun dying was a tongue-in-cheek remark that had nothing whatsoever to do with the other post? ok never mind.
    And you thought my reply about super-intelligent, giant cockroaches was to be taken seriously???
    Umm no, why?
    Because that's what you were replying to...????
    My reply was explicitly about SandyRentool NOT about cockroaches.
    Do we have a quote of the month competition on PB? Because I'd like to nominate that.
    Finally the recognition I deserve. Misunderstood genius.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,629
    Cyclefree said:

    1. The Angiolini Report on how Wayne Couzens became & remained a police officer despite numerous reports of criminal behaviour & other red flags. From the Foreword: "It also remains the case that women in public spaces are at risk from those men who choose to predate upon them." The Report hopes that those in authority in all police forces (not just the Met) will read the Report.

    2. This is not just about exceptionally awful cases such as Carrick & Couzens. See Jeff Mitchell - https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/24134622.met-police-officer-convicted-kidnap-rape-rape-child/. Like Couzens there was an earlier opportunity to catch him, which was missed.

    3. Or there's the HMIC Report earlier this month on the Met's handling of child sexual exploitation, described as ineffective and leaving children - overwhelmingly girls - vulnerable to sexual exploitation. https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/metropolitan-police-leaving-vulnerable-children-at-risk-of-exploitation/

    4. Today in Parliament the debate for International Women's Day has been brought forward because of the Budget. Jess Phillips reads out the list of ca. 100 women murdered in the U.K. by a man in 2023. The names are collected by the Femicide Census: on average since the end of 2009, 140 women have been killed by men every year. That’s an average of two women dead at the hands of a man, every 5 days. Most occur in a domestic setting.

    So it's not just "public spaces" then.

    5. Staffordshire Police have done some "hate crime" training in which they were told that "Women who take measures to protect themselves against unfamiliar men are subject to flawed unconscious bias and, therefore, similar to racists." Memo to Staffs Police - see point 1.

    6. Abuse of women MPs has become worse and is driving women away. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/misogyny-in-westminster-is-driving-women-out-of-politics-mps-warn-q0wf9b96q

    "The irony is that the more women you get, the more it triggers some men who whilst they can blot out of their ears a couple of women, somehow it feels like an assault on them to actually have to listen to a number of women in authority talking confidently, and they then do a backlash. So really it’s part of fighting back against the backlash that comes when you make progress …"

    Not just In Westminster.

    7. And, finally, just to make this comment vaguely on topic, George Galloway, a man who said that you don't need consent for every "insertion" (his words) - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783 - because a lack of consent is merely bad sexual etiquette not rape - may well be elected an MP for Rochdale, a town usually in the public eye either because of grooming gangs or the revolting personal behaviour of its MPs.

    Perhaps these are just coincidences. Or one of those "moral panics" or "culture wars" used to dismiss those raising such concerns. Or, I dunno, perhaps there are some underlying reasons linking and explaining all these matters.

    5) comes from the data that women feel unsafe in a wide range of public areas. Especially poorer areas with high crime. Since there are no no-go** areas for *anyone*, this means that the women are the problem.

    **Perhaps better described as prefer-not-to-go. When I go home from rowing, the path to the nearest public transport goes through an area that can be described as rough but improving. A couple of the ladies prefer to walk with me, so they can take the direct route. Rather than the long way round. They are not rich or "privileged" people.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    Liz Truss is legitimately insane.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 29

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,629
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    Another one who hasn't been to the theatre recently.
    If nothing else, if the audience in plays in London was only white British, the theatres would be bloody empty. Or entirely full of people travelling from Yorkshire or something.

    In fact, when I go, either the audience is very international or there is some incredible cosplaying of furriners, complete with very convincing makeup. Of the level of Robert Downey in Tropic Thunder.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,492
    edited February 29
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the worst airport lounges I have been to was Kenya Air at Nairobi

    The airport was crowded, smelly and hideous so I headed to the lounge with great vigour, only to discover that the "lounge" was the size of a garden shed, and it was even more smelly crowded and hideous than the airport. and the only "free stuff" was a machine pumping out cold drinks and people were actually FIGHTING over the chance to use it

    I retreated to some corridor and sat on my bags

    Always fly from Barra. None of these problems arise. And they have more scheduled flights than the whole of North Korea. Delays sometimes when the tide is in.

    https://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport
    Brilliant. I've always wanted to fly in or out of there!

    I love the mad airports in the Scottish islands

    The craziest I've done is probably Foula "airport", which consists of a small shed and a grass landing strip, right by enormous cliffs, and there is nearly always a wind, sometimes brutal wind

    Scary but exciting
    St Mary’s in the Scillies is quite exciting; on the approach you get well buffeted about by the wind; the first two thirds of the runway is gently uphill and if you don’t stop the plane by then, you go over the hump and there’s a short downhill stretch ending at the clifftop.
    I've only ever done the chopper from Penzance - St Marys. But that is also enormous fun

    And a lot quicker and less vomit-inducing than the notorious boat

    I remember reading a few years ago that they'd cancelled the service. Happily, I am wrong:

    https://penzancehelicopters.co.uk/
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371
    Pulpstar said:

    kamski said:

    NY Times on Arab voters in Michigan.

    If you have bet on Biden this is a very worrying piece...



    "Muslims represent only around 1 percent of the overall electorate, but Awad believes there are enough Muslim voters in Michigan and Georgia, two swing states, to make it nearly impossible for Biden to win re-election without their support."

    "For some voters, this isn’t just a policy dispute. It’s a moral mission, and the mark of victory is a Biden defeat. The question now is, how large is that constituency?"

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/opinion/voters-michigan-biden-gaza.html

    That gives Biden nine months to get a ceasefire and leak to the press about American diplomacy. It should not take that long.
    Surely Biden's got very little chance in Georgia anyway? It doesn't help to lose Muslim votes in Michigan, but there must be loads of other demographic micro-groups which have more than 1 percent of the electorate...
    "very little chance in Georgia"

    Well he won it last time round. Atlanta was a very very strong city for him.
    Yes I probably shouldn't write it off. Looking at latest polling of the swing states, Georgia and Nevada look bad, Trump is ahead in Arizona and Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are very close. Biden can afford to lose Georgia, Nevada and Arizona. But not Michigan (or Wisconsin, or Penn) as well. If he does lose Michigan, Biden is currently closer to picking up North Carolina than holding Georgia, as a saver.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,446
    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    The whip hand?
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    Yes, I know all that, hence I asked under which circumstances could other races or religions be asked not to attend plays. Surprisingly, the answer was ‘Muslims be asked not to attend a play about South Yorkshire Grooming Gangs” which is as bad as what the writer of Slave Play has done, although it is a great publicity stunt to get his work in the news, the intent all along no doubt
    I mean, I disagree with the whole conclusion of "Muslims be asked not to attend a play on the South Yorkshire grooming gangs" - because this isn't about who the perpetrators of the violence depicted in the play are, it's about the ability for people not used to being the majority in a space, or indeed only those people in a space, being able to be in that space to experience something written specifically to do that. A more apt comparison would be like women or queer only gym sessions - things that happen all the time because it is recognised that they may be intimidated out of the space by those who typically use it.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,451
    Gazans slaughtered whilst waiting for food aid and reports of children starving to death in northern Gaza .

    Israel and the IDF are committing war crimes .
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,492
    IanB2 said:

    I reckon it will soon be confirmed that for some, quite possibly much, of the UK this has been the wettest February ever recorded.

    This seems to be the new climate change normal?

    Longer hotter summers, but much wetter autumns and, especially, winters
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    It seems from this article, from a Labour Party member, as though Rayner made a forgivable mistake and wouldn’t have profited much, if at all, from dodging CGT. But either she or her ex-husband did dodge it, probably unwittingly.

    https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    Yes, I know all that, hence I asked under which circumstances could other races or religions be asked not to attend plays. Surprisingly, the answer was ‘Muslims be asked not to attend a play about South Yorkshire Grooming Gangs” which is as bad as what the writer of Slave Play has done, although it is a great publicity stunt to get his work in the news, the intent all along no doubt
    I mean, I disagree with the whole conclusion of "Muslims be asked not to attend a play on the South Yorkshire grooming gangs" - because this isn't about who the perpetrators of the violence depicted in the play are, it's about the ability for people not used to being the majority in a space, or indeed only those people in a space, being able to be in that space to experience something written specifically to do that. A more apt comparison would be like women or queer only gym sessions - things that happen all the time because it is recognised that they may be intimidated out of the space by those who typically use it.
    Well that wasn’t the view of the person I was debating it with on X - she said white people were not invited because they were the oppressors, and black people should have a chance to watch the play without that presence
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    Another one who hasn't been to the theatre recently.
    I saw "A Little Life" last year, courtesy of a Conservative minister being busy with work so the ticket got given to me instead, which was useful as it was a very expensive ticket! Anyway, fantastic first two thirds, really innovative direction, but the story just crumbles into ridiculousness as it goes on.

    Before that was the Belarus Free Theatre, a theatre company in exile, doing "King Stakh's Wild Hunt", in Belarusian. Visually exciting, the plot all a metaphor for the history of the country. Not bad. But much better was their "Dogs of Europe" a few years before.

    "Indecent” at the Menier Chocolate Factory in 2021 -- cheap tickets via a seat-filling website -- was brilliant. About Yiddish culture over the 20th century and the destruction wrought by the Holocaust. Amazing play.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    The whip hand?
    Everyone seems to want it, it’s human nature regardless of race
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762

    Liz Truss is legitimately insane.

    True, but has something in particular triggered this observation?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Heathener said:

    I’m posting this simply to illustrate that many of us travel all over the world, including in business, without the need of clogging up this political betting website with irrevelant travelogues.

    Hypocrisy and irony? No because of the intent …

    Have a nice day everyone and let’s hope GG does not win tonight. Whatever one’s persuasion he is simply an awful little man.








    You need to work on your angles. Put your glass of bubbles in the front of the photo, to give it life and scale, and you've posted too many photos of the same scene

    But a modestly promising start
    Way too generous a review.

    "1 star
    I would give this travel update 0 stars if I could! If I wanted to see boring pictures of a fridge I would just go into my kitchen and take some on my phone, and they would be more interesting than this rubbish. Also - no attempt to pretend that you are leading a great life to hide the emptiness in your soul"
    Airport lounges only seem nice because they've engineered the rest of the airport to be as dehumanising and extractive as possible. They're designed for the kind of person who reads the Daily Mail and gets excited by the prospect of a "free" glass of cheap champagne and a small pot of Pringles. Leon, in other words.
    I much prefer Bounremouth. You can, or at least could, sit *outside* in a sort of Guy the Gorilla cage and sun and air yourself for free, and watch the occasional heritage jets take off (I got a Hunter). No fizz or nuts, unless self-provided, but who cares?
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,559
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    I reckon it will soon be confirmed that for some, quite possibly much, of the UK this has been the wettest February ever recorded.

    This seems to be the new climate change normal?

    Longer hotter summers, but much wetter autumns and, especially, winters
    There is a slight trend on the long-term observations of that expected pattern, yes, though the variability in rainfall is very high, so it's harder for a trend to emerge from the statistical noise.

    Wetter winters (because the ocean is warmer), drier summers (I think because of circulation changes created by hotter land, though when it does rain the rain will be heavier, so good expect drier summers and more summer flash floods)
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,251
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    I don't have a great deal of concern for humans who will never exist. Which actually represents the vast, vast majority of potential humans, past, present and future.
    Why are you bringing 'humans who will never exist' into it???? Bonkers.

    You sound like you don't have a great deal of concern about humans who do exist.
    Far from it. I want us all to have the best possible quality of life, living as moral beings.

    But stop having so many children.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    Yes, I know all that, hence I asked under which circumstances could other races or religions be asked not to attend plays. Surprisingly, the answer was ‘Muslims be asked not to attend a play about South Yorkshire Grooming Gangs” which is as bad as what the writer of Slave Play has done, although it is a great publicity stunt to get his work in the news, the intent all along no doubt
    I mean, I disagree with the whole conclusion of "Muslims be asked not to attend a play on the South Yorkshire grooming gangs" - because this isn't about who the perpetrators of the violence depicted in the play are, it's about the ability for people not used to being the majority in a space, or indeed only those people in a space, being able to be in that space to experience something written specifically to do that. A more apt comparison would be like women or queer only gym sessions - things that happen all the time because it is recognised that they may be intimidated out of the space by those who typically use it.
    Well that wasn’t the view of the person I was debating it with on X - she said white people were not invited because they were the oppressors, and black people should have a chance to watch the play without that presence
    Okay, well, random person on X is stupid - again the writer has done an interview on BBC Radio where you can hear him explain in his own words why he has done what he has done.

    Maybe an even more apt comparison would be women only showings of the Vagina Monologues - another play that is specifically supposed to be confrontational to the audience (in this case on issues of patriarchy and misogyny, not race) and where, often, all women audiences are invited to showings (with all women casts and all women crew!). This is not a new thing in theatre.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,090
    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    Your stance makes no sense though. Reducing the human population through lower birth rates doesn't mean killing off any of today's living human beings. None of the list of who you care about will be affected by that.
    Huh? What do you think my 'stance' is?

    I don't think the "planet being substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years" is a good thing for the billions of humans who are going to be around for the next couple of hundred years. I'm all in favour of the human population stabilising and slowly reducing. But a very rapid reduction would be pretty bad news for most humans in the short/medium term.
    I’ve not seen any evidence that a “very rapid reduction” is particularly likely. There’s a low fertility rate in South Korea, but South Korea is just one part of the world.
    China's birthrate is just over 1, half the rate needed for stability. More or less nowhere is Europe is at replacement levels. The UK level has indeed fallen fast, from 2.1 to 1.5 in just a few years.
    Even India is below replacement !

    Israel has many problems but they've maintained above replacement TFR with a good per capita income. Lower gini coefficient than the UK too...
    But many of the children are of parents who refuse to work or serve in the military, and are growing as a proportion of the population, in a country with strict PR. I see trouble ahead.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,888
    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    That's weird - I do a similar thing, once or twice a month, although not this year yet tbf and there has been a hugely diverse audience. Last thing was Dear England I would say 30% non white (and under 30, damn them) and previously many productions at the Young Vic, Waterloo East, the National (of course Dear England started there).

    There are, according to various surveys, 4% of people who identify as black in the UK. I think that 4% is over-represented but make no comment as to whether that is a good or bad thing.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,629
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Why would men only clubs upset anyone? After all, there are lots of members clubs that accept women.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Everyone wants to be in charge, it’s not about equality.

    Any race being told they’re not welcome at a play, be it for two (2) performances or five (5) minutes, is not on. These things have to start somewhere, and this is could be the start of more segregation. Tit for tat will follow, and friction will increase
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,762

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Why would men only clubs upset anyone? After all, there are lots of members clubs that accept women.
    You seem to be ignoring history. If group A has had centuries of iniquitous power over group B, then talking about an event just for group B or just for group A isn't equivalent.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    More about creating public row as advertising, I reckon.

    The Telegraph did a thing a few years back, where they paid for people to go to plays, opera and ballet, who wouldn't normally go. The universal response they got was "We didn't know we didn't need to dress up" and for plays "Had no idea it was that cheap" with quite a lot of "We didn't think it was for the likes of us"

    Tickets for Shakespeare at The Globe can start from a fiver, incidentally....
    Just avoid the Henry's - they go on for ever and there's always another part to watch...
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Why would men only clubs upset anyone? After all, there are lots of members clubs that accept women.
    Men only clubs are legal, no? Like, members clubs are a thing - we're going to see a TERF one soon fall flat on its face because hardly anyone is going to go there.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074
    IanB2 said:

    I reckon it will soon be confirmed that for some, quite possibly much, of the UK this has been the wettest February ever recorded.

    No, it's just the optical illusion caused by living on the southern fringes with a small dog for scale.

    Only joking - but, seriously, it's been pretty average up in Scotland, a little less if anything (and bright and sunny right now).

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/wettest-ever-february-areas-uk-191933311.html

    But I'll tell you something, my chum at Lyme Regis tells me the coastal path has been closed because of multiple landslips along the Undercliff to Axmouth - those won't necessarily be the huge TV cliff-edge clickbait kind but small ones, from what I recall of the route. Something's lubricating the slip planes.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 29
    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    Yes, I know all that, hence I asked under which circumstances could other races or religions be asked not to attend plays. Surprisingly, the answer was ‘Muslims be asked not to attend a play about South Yorkshire Grooming Gangs” which is as bad as what the writer of Slave Play has done, although it is a great publicity stunt to get his work in the news, the intent all along no doubt
    I mean, I disagree with the whole conclusion of "Muslims be asked not to attend a play on the South Yorkshire grooming gangs" - because this isn't about who the perpetrators of the violence depicted in the play are, it's about the ability for people not used to being the majority in a space, or indeed only those people in a space, being able to be in that space to experience something written specifically to do that. A more apt comparison would be like women or queer only gym sessions - things that happen all the time because it is recognised that they may be intimidated out of the space by those who typically use it.
    Well that wasn’t the view of the person I was debating it with on X - she said white people were not invited because they were the oppressors, and black people should have a chance to watch the play without that presence
    Okay, well, random person on X is stupid - again the writer has done an interview on BBC Radio where you can hear him explain in his own words why he has done what he has done.

    Maybe an even more apt comparison would be women only showings of the Vagina Monologues - another play that is specifically supposed to be confrontational to the audience (in this case on issues of patriarchy and misogyny, not race) and where, often, all women audiences are invited to showings (with all women casts and all women crew!). This is not a new thing in theatre.
    So the fact this play is about racism is just a coincidence? Why not do a black only invite to a play with no racial element if it’s just about people who don’t usually go to the theatre? Do they have to have special content written for them?

    The vagina monologues are explicitly about women, that’s why there were women only shows, and this show has black invite nights because it’s about a sensitive issue for black people, not because they don’t normally go to the theatre

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,251
    kamski said:

    Stocky said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    A reason to celebrate.

    If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
    Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
    The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
    If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
    Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
    Possibly.

    Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.

    SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
    I don't have a great deal of concern for humans who will never exist. Which actually represents the vast, vast majority of potential humans, past, present and future.
    Why are you bringing 'humans who will never exist' into it???? Bonkers.

    You sound like you don't have a great deal of concern about humans who do exist.
    Out of interest, do you have more concern about humans you don't know and never will elsewhere in the world or endangered non-humans animals such as mountain gorillas and blue whales? Just curious.
    Before answering, I feel that mountain gorillas and blue whales and blue whales are way closer to humans than most life forms on earth, so in that sense your choice of non-human animals is quite human-centred.

    Also, I tend to believe that the things we need to do to save those species are also good for humans.

    But apart from that the question is quite difficult to answer, but if it was a choice between humans becoming extinct or mountain gorillas and blue whales becoming extinct, I would lose the gorillas and whales. Even if humans are the species wrecking the planet and the others aren't.
    Speciesist.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    That's weird - I do a similar thing, once or twice a month, although not this year yet tbf and there has been a hugely diverse audience. Last thing was Dear England I would say 30% non white (and under 30, damn them) and previously many productions at the Young Vic, Waterloo East, the National (of course Dear England started there).

    There are, according to various surveys, 4% of people who identify as black in the UK. I think that 4% is over-represented but make no comment as to whether that is a good or bad thing.
    I mean, maybe it's the shows I go to (I typically do musicals or drama theatre, occasionally comedy theatre) but my sister tends to go to more pop theatre stuff (Six, Everybody's Talking about Jamie, Kinky Boots etc.) - I could ask her. It's possible that this is a age shift thing - but in my work where we look at social capital of students we know that poorer students and non-white students are less likely to engage with things like theatre, live music, even live sporting events and so on.
  • Options

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,213
    moonshine said:

    Surprised so much discussion on declining birth rates and no one has mentioned age extension tech. It might not come soon enough for 60 year old Aubrey de Grey but if we’re looking at what things are like in 2124, I’d be amazed if it’s not the major determinant of the demographic pyramid. Also we may have defined robots as non human persons by then too…

    Life expectancy has stalled since Covid
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,629
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Why would men only clubs upset anyone? After all, there are lots of members clubs that accept women.
    Men only clubs are legal, no? Like, members clubs are a thing - we're going to see a TERF one soon fall flat on its face because hardly anyone is going to go there.
    They are considered in pretty poor taste, by quite a few.

    There are some very good members clubs out there, which do rather well.
  • Options
    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    Not in the UK. Tony Awards opening number, Broadway It's Not Just for Gays Anymore.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BHyfYiBt5o
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,240
    IanB2 said:

    I reckon it will soon be confirmed that for some, quite possibly much, of the UK this has been the wettest February ever recorded.

    7th highest for England & Wales according to HADUKP. Moving average annual rainfall moving towards a metre a year.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918
    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    What is the white percentage of the population as a whole?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,213

    NY Times on Arab voters in Michigan.

    If you have bet on Biden this is a very worrying piece...



    "Muslims represent only around 1 percent of the overall electorate, but Awad believes there are enough Muslim voters in Michigan and Georgia, two swing states, to make it nearly impossible for Biden to win re-election without their support."

    "For some voters, this isn’t just a policy dispute. It’s a moral mission, and the mark of victory is a Biden defeat. The question now is, how large is that constituency?"

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/opinion/voters-michigan-biden-gaza.html

    The Jewish vote is now leaning Trump so Biden may as well go for the Muslim vote and push for a Gaza ceasefire and a permanent one
    https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/majority-of-new-york-jewish-voters-intend-to-vote-for-trump-says-new-poll-j1ejhx7w
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,888

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    Another one who hasn't been to the theatre recently.
    I saw "A Little Life" last year, courtesy of a Conservative minister being busy with work so the ticket got given to me instead, which was useful as it was a very expensive ticket! Anyway, fantastic first two thirds, really innovative direction, but the story just crumbles into ridiculousness as it goes on.

    Before that was the Belarus Free Theatre, a theatre company in exile, doing "King Stakh's Wild Hunt", in Belarusian. Visually exciting, the plot all a metaphor for the history of the country. Not bad. But much better was their "Dogs of Europe" a few years before.

    "Indecent” at the Menier Chocolate Factory in 2021 -- cheap tickets via a seat-filling website -- was brilliant. About Yiddish culture over the 20th century and the destruction wrought by the Holocaust. Amazing play.
    I didn't see A Little Life because having read the book I wasn't sure what the play could add/bring.

    But talking of those seat filling websites that is exactly what I use to buy tickets. They are great. Productions you wouldn't necessarily think would need bums on seats at a fraction of the price. I also went to see Tom Holland talk about his new book, Pax, via a seat filling site. I wonder if he knew that not a few people in the audience had come to see him essentially for free and had been bribed to be there.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Why would men only clubs upset anyone? After all, there are lots of members clubs that accept women.
    Men only clubs are legal, no? Like, members clubs are a thing - we're going to see a TERF one soon fall flat on its face because hardly anyone is going to go there.
    They are considered in pretty poor taste, by quite a few.

    There are some very good members clubs out there, which do rather well.
    The kind that needs a member to get in?

    *gets coat*
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    Yes, I know all that, hence I asked under which circumstances could other races or religions be asked not to attend plays. Surprisingly, the answer was ‘Muslims be asked not to attend a play about South Yorkshire Grooming Gangs” which is as bad as what the writer of Slave Play has done, although it is a great publicity stunt to get his work in the news, the intent all along no doubt
    I mean, I disagree with the whole conclusion of "Muslims be asked not to attend a play on the South Yorkshire grooming gangs" - because this isn't about who the perpetrators of the violence depicted in the play are, it's about the ability for people not used to being the majority in a space, or indeed only those people in a space, being able to be in that space to experience something written specifically to do that. A more apt comparison would be like women or queer only gym sessions - things that happen all the time because it is recognised that they may be intimidated out of the space by those who typically use it.
    Well that wasn’t the view of the person I was debating it with on X - she said white people were not invited because they were the oppressors, and black people should have a chance to watch the play without that presence
    Okay, well, random person on X is stupid - again the writer has done an interview on BBC Radio where you can hear him explain in his own words why he has done what he has done.

    Maybe an even more apt comparison would be women only showings of the Vagina Monologues - another play that is specifically supposed to be confrontational to the audience (in this case on issues of patriarchy and misogyny, not race) and where, often, all women audiences are invited to showings (with all women casts and all women crew!). This is not a new thing in theatre.
    So the fact this play is about racism is just a coincidence? Why not do a black only invite to a play with no racial element if it’s just about people who don’t usually go to the theatre? Do they have to have special content written for them?

    The vagina monologues are explicitly about women, that’s why there were women only shows, and this show has black invite nights because it’s about a sensitive issue for black people, not because they don’t normally go to the theatre

    No, it's not a coincidence - I'm saying that the issue isn't about oppressor / oppressed in relation to who the play is about, it's about the space for the audience to experience the play. The point the writer of the play is trying to address is the ability for black people to experience the play in a space where it is overwhelming other black people with them, in part, because black people are underrepresented in theatre audiences and they are de facto white spaces.

    https://www.instagram.com/bbcradio4/reel/C3288KYxHwR/
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918
    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    I reckon it will soon be confirmed that for some, quite possibly much, of the UK this has been the wettest February ever recorded.

    No, it's just the optical illusion caused by living on the southern fringes with a small dog for scale.

    Only joking - but, seriously, it's been pretty average up in Scotland, a little less if anything (and bright and sunny right now).

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/wettest-ever-february-areas-uk-191933311.html

    But I'll tell you something, my chum at Lyme Regis tells me the coastal path has been closed because of multiple landslips along the Undercliff to Axmouth - those won't necessarily be the huge TV cliff-edge clickbait kind but small ones, from what I recall of the route. Something's lubricating the slip planes.
    Sexy talk - 'lubricating those slip planes' is surely NSFW!
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,074

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    What is the white percentage of the population as a whole?
    But which population, for the urban centres with convenient access to theatres?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,213
    edited February 29

    Stocky said:

    Mortimer said:

    DavidL said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status

    Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
    🙂

    But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.

    Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.

    Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
    Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.

    Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
    But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?

    Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.

    Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
    There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.

    Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.

    I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
    Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...

    • Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.

    • Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.

    • Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.

    • Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.

    • Stop the boats - :shrug:

    He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
    Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
    The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.

    Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
    Why would he bother? It would be as pointless me issuing my plans for managing the England football team to world cup glory in 2026.
    That's like saying why bother fighting hopeless or safe seats.

    If you don't seriously aspire to govern you risk not even motivating your base to come out.
    They're not going to come out.

    A good 75% of the ACTIVISTS in my local party are not feeling motivated. God only knows what the voter base is like.

    If only we had a year of polls showing Sunak is a failed leader, some on the backbenches might make a move...
    The trouble is that Sunak comes across as the school swat.
    One of the many problems.

    The others being:

    - terrible policy
    - not being good at politics

    Honestly, I do not know why he is still in place....
    Have you looked at the alternatives? Jeez.
    Yep! I'd take Mrs May over Sunak....
    She might do better, but only marginally surely? And she might not. I can't see that yet another change of leader is a good idea.
    There are two problems with May as PM right now. She would probably find it impossible to keep the party united. Even though Brexit is dealt with now, the scars from her time as PM are still there. And she couldn't credibly pretend that she was campaigning to be PM for the whole of the next Parliament. She'd transparently be a caretaker. So who would come next in the unlikely event the Tories stayed in office?
    Sunak again most likely, which is why the ERG won't move against him and certainly not for a Sunak loyalist like May, they want Sunak and Hunt to own the likely defeat so they can push the party right in opposition
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,888
    edited February 29
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Why would men only clubs upset anyone? After all, there are lots of members clubs that accept women.
    Men only clubs are legal, no? Like, members clubs are a thing - we're going to see a TERF one soon fall flat on its face because hardly anyone is going to go there.
    There have been plenty of women-only clubs over the years and a lot of them fail for one reason or another. Chief did the other day with plenty more before it. I don't think it is a TERF thing unless you think that a women-only club that doesn't let Trans Women in (do they?) is a TERF club, as opposed to the Turf Club where men and women are allowed in, I understand.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    What is the white percentage of the population as a whole?
    ~83% white for the entire UK, 81% for England, 53% for London.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,213
    algarkirk said:

    NY Times on Arab voters in Michigan.

    If you have bet on Biden this is a very worrying piece...



    "Muslims represent only around 1 percent of the overall electorate, but Awad believes there are enough Muslim voters in Michigan and Georgia, two swing states, to make it nearly impossible for Biden to win re-election without their support."

    "For some voters, this isn’t just a policy dispute. It’s a moral mission, and the mark of victory is a Biden defeat. The question now is, how large is that constituency?"

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/opinion/voters-michigan-biden-gaza.html

    Swing states do what it says on the tin. The Muslim vote could turn it one way or another, but so could every other group. You can't deal with a swing seat or state by only addressing one particular swing group within it. Because you may lose as many votes as you gain.

    Having said that, because of polling in the 6 or so swingest states, I think, barring legal bars, Trump is going to win those states, and therefore the election, anyway. As Trump would say, "Sad".
    Legal bars may of course include Trump being literally behind bars by polling day if convicted in any of his criminal cases
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    I wondered when the PB anti white racism crowd would get on this, it took longer than I thought. Come on guys, raise your game!
    I’m glad of it, it shows what I knew all along; it’s not about equality, it’s about power
    Racism is about power, so obvious equality and equity will be about redistributing that power.

    I'm sure I've said this before, but there is a really interesting white people (in the US, but I think it applies in the UK too) considering racism (or any kind of movement towards equity) as zero-sum - that any gains for other must, de facto, mean losses for them. Again; this is two (2) nights out of how many showings? What is the issue?
    Why would men only clubs upset anyone? After all, there are lots of members clubs that accept women.
    Men only clubs are legal, no? Like, members clubs are a thing - we're going to see a TERF one soon fall flat on its face because hardly anyone is going to go there.
    There have been plenty of women-only clubs over the years and a lot of them fail for one reason or another. Chief did the other day with plenty more before it. I don't think it is a TERF thing unless you think that a women-only club that doesn't let Trans Women in (do they?) is a TERF club.
    I mean it's being set up by a TERF specifically as a TERF rallying point - so yeah, I'm calling it a TERF club.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,888
    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    That's weird - I do a similar thing, once or twice a month, although not this year yet tbf and there has been a hugely diverse audience. Last thing was Dear England I would say 30% non white (and under 30, damn them) and previously many productions at the Young Vic, Waterloo East, the National (of course Dear England started there).

    There are, according to various surveys, 4% of people who identify as black in the UK. I think that 4% is over-represented but make no comment as to whether that is a good or bad thing.
    I mean, maybe it's the shows I go to (I typically do musicals or drama theatre, occasionally comedy theatre) but my sister tends to go to more pop theatre stuff (Six, Everybody's Talking about Jamie, Kinky Boots etc.) - I could ask her. It's possible that this is a age shift thing - but in my work where we look at social capital of students we know that poorer students and non-white students are less likely to engage with things like theatre, live music, even live sporting events and so on.
    I avoid musicals. But of course I wonder what the attendance is like at Hamilton.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    What is the white percentage of the population as a whole?
    ~83% white for the entire UK, 81% for England, 53% for London.
    Which provides a bit more context. What about across the classes? Theatre is seen (rightly or wrongly as middle class). What is the percentage of the middle class that is white?

    Theatre isn't racist - people are making choices with that they do with their limited free time and money. Not everything is about race.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,888
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    What is the white percentage of the population as a whole?
    ~83% white for the entire UK, 81% for England, 53% for London.
    4% of people identify as black. IME plenty more than 4% of London theatre audiences are black.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,213

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
    1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk
    2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense.
    3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.

    Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
    There's arguably an advantage in being among the first movers when it comes to falling birth rates - particularly if we manage to address the problem over the next decade or so.

    Fixing housing would almost certainly help (also ultra high density living appears to inversely correlate with birth rates) - but we can probably learn some lessons from the Korean problems. Policy solutions only go so far; cultural effects seem to outweigh them.
    Putting people in tiny boxes makes them wonder if they have space for children? Who knew?

    The drivers of extremely low birth rates are

    - The dual expectation (career+child rearing) for women
    - Career effects for women
    - Housing cost
    - Childcare costs
    Reward stay at home mothers, fund more childcare, build more housing.

    Meloni in Italy is certainly pushing more funds for women with at least 2 children

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/italy-earmarks-e1-billion-to-boost-dwindling-birthrate/
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980
    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    That's weird - I do a similar thing, once or twice a month, although not this year yet tbf and there has been a hugely diverse audience. Last thing was Dear England I would say 30% non white (and under 30, damn them) and previously many productions at the Young Vic, Waterloo East, the National (of course Dear England started there).

    There are, according to various surveys, 4% of people who identify as black in the UK. I think that 4% is over-represented but make no comment as to whether that is a good or bad thing.
    I mean, maybe it's the shows I go to (I typically do musicals or drama theatre, occasionally comedy theatre) but my sister tends to go to more pop theatre stuff (Six, Everybody's Talking about Jamie, Kinky Boots etc.) - I could ask her. It's possible that this is a age shift thing - but in my work where we look at social capital of students we know that poorer students and non-white students are less likely to engage with things like theatre, live music, even live sporting events and so on.
    I avoid musicals. But of course I wonder what the attendance is like at Hamilton.
    Again, when I saw Hamilton I would say it was an almost all white audience (we even had to do an early evacuation because the fire alarms went off and most of the audience were on the street - I saw Alexander Armstrong).
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,980

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    What is the white percentage of the population as a whole?
    ~83% white for the entire UK, 81% for England, 53% for London.
    Which provides a bit more context. What about across the classes? Theatre is seen (rightly or wrongly as middle class). What is the percentage of the middle class that is white?

    Theatre isn't racist - people are making choices with that they do with their limited free time and money. Not everything is about race.
    I mean I would expect theatre audiences in London to be more diverse than the country as a whole - even if not as close to London demography. So I don't know the point you're making...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,213
    TimS said:

    algarkirk said:

    Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.

    Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?

    A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.

    That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.

    That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.

    That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.

    Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?

    Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
    1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk
    2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense.
    3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.

    Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
    The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.

    If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
    The interesting thing is what happens after say 2080.

    Let’s assume by then we’ve got climate change under control and not nuked ourselves out of existence or been replaced by AI.

    It’s hard to imagine a world where birth rates, once fallen below replacement, go back up again. Extrapolate that trend and never mind 2000, after a few generations we get back to mid century levels, then 19th century levels, and by sheer mathematical logic within a couple of centuries or so humans become a vestigial species, occupying a small ecological niche concentrated in large cities surrounded by the archaeological remains of past civilisations. Like a sort of global version of the Mezzogiorno or Massif Central.

    In Africa population is still well above replacement level and we still need agriculture in rural areas even if most people live in urban areas
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,918
    edited February 29
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    isam said:

    I managed to have my first row on X for about a year today, over the play in London about the slave trade whose writer asked for two performances to be primarily for a black audience if possible. White people can buy tickets and turn up, but they’re not really welcome.

    By the end of it, she said she’d be comfortable with a play about South Yorkshire grooming to have two days where Muslims were asked not to attend, though not banned. This seems just as bad to me

    The play is called Slave Play - it is about race and racism, and the writer of the play did an interview on the radio explaining his position; that theatre (in the UK and US specifically) is typically a very white audience and a space that black audiences are not typically actively invited to. He wanted to make two shows out of many a specific invite to a black only audience so they could watch the themes the play discusses without necessarily having to do so in front of white people.

    I think it is more obscene that tickets for theatre and football are increasingly just becoming unaffordable for average working people and that art and fun should not be gate kept only for the comfy and well to do. Bread and roses, after all. That two nights out of months (?) of shows is causing this much outrage kind of proves the point of why the writer wants these nights to exist.
    a) sorry to hear about your travails with Long Covid
    b) you evidently haven't been to the theatre recently; it's a very diverse audience
    I go to the theatre like once or twice a month, depending on what's on, and unless it's tourist shlock (namely Phantom of the Opera) - it really isn't. I saw Pacific Overtures in January at the Menier Chocolate Factory; practically an all white audience, same for The Play that Goes Wrong & Old Friends. Am going to Hadestown tonight - we'll see if that's the case from a play with a majority black cast, but I would be willing to put money on it. I'm also going to see Othello at the Wannamaker, and every time I've gone there there are overwhelmingly white audiences (the Globe itself tends to be somewhat more diverse, but standing tickets are much cheaper, and is also it's own kind of tourist trap). I don't think I've ever seen a theatre audience and thought it represented the demographics of the country - and certainly not London where I typically see theatre.

    This article is paywalled, so I can't read it, but the report is here:
    93% of NPO theatre audiences were white in 2020/21, report reveals
    https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/93-of-npo-theatre-audiences-were-white-in-202021-report-reveals

    https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-data-report-2020-2021

    So, yeah, I think there are issues with access to theatre for non-white people in the UK.
    What is the white percentage of the population as a whole?
    ~83% white for the entire UK, 81% for England, 53% for London.
    Which provides a bit more context. What about across the classes? Theatre is seen (rightly or wrongly as middle class). What is the percentage of the middle class that is white?

    Theatre isn't racist - people are making choices with that they do with their limited free time and money. Not everything is about race.
    I mean I would expect theatre audiences in London to be more diverse than the country as a whole - even if not as close to London demography. So I don't know the point you're making...
    Many of the audiences will be up to London for a show. I think the point is that yes the proportion of non-white is lower than the population as a whole, it is perhaps closer to the population from which theatre goers are drawn.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,178
    Fishing said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status

    Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
    🙂

    But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.

    Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.

    Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
    Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.

    Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
    But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?

    Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.

    Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
    There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.

    Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.

    I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
    Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...

    • Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.

    • Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.

    • Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.

    • Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.

    • Stop the boats - :shrug:

    He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
    Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
    The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.

    Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
    Why would he bother? It would be as pointless me issuing my plans for managing the England football team to world cup glory in 2026.
    That's like saying why bother fighting hopeless or safe seats.

    If you don't seriously aspire to govern you risk not even motivating your base to come out.
    They're not going to come out.

    A good 75% of the ACTIVISTS in my local party are not feeling motivated. God only knows what the voter base is like.

    If only we had a year of polls showing Sunak is a failed leader, some on the backbenches might make a move...
    The trouble is that Sunak comes across as the school swat.
    He also has a puzzling inability to set out any kind of vision as to where he wants to take the country, let alone persuade people to buy into it. That's the difference, I think, between an average politician and a leader. Like Gordon Brown Sunak can fill in some of the details in somebody else's vision, but has none of his own. And it's also the main reason why Sunak, though probably pretty good as a junior minister, was criminally over-promoted as a senior Cabinet Minister, let alone as PM.
    For me, one of the most off-putting things about Sunak is his disdain for politics. It's not just that he lacks a vision, it's that he doesn't seem to see the point of having a vision.

    That's not something you can say about Brown - he fully understood that the point of achieving power is to do something with it (it's just that he had lost sight of what that something might be)

    As Hyufd has pointed out, Sunak has no history of being a party member or activist before becoming an MP. He doesn't seem to enjoy the job much. He shows very little interest in leaving any sort of legacy, or in what might happen to his party after he steps down.

    It's clear that he's keen to work hard in the pursuit of success, and that's commendable. But a good PM has to be rather more than that.
  • Options
    PJHPJH Posts: 575
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status

    Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
    🙂

    But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.

    Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.

    Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
    Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.

    Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
    But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?

    Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.

    Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
    There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.

    Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.

    I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
    Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...

    • Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.

    • Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.

    • Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.

    • Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.

    • Stop the boats - :shrug:

    He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
    Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
    The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.

    Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
    More of the same vapid, ineffective centre-leftism that he is currently presiding over, I expect....
    He's not centre-left, he's failed neoliberal right.
    Nope. Petty interfering in people's lives and businesses smacks entirely of vapid new-labourism.
    It's neither right nor left. Authoritarians of both stripes do it just as much as each other in different ways. This government is of the authoritarian right.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,213
    AlsoLei said:

    Fishing said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status

    Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
    🙂

    But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.

    Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.

    Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
    Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.

    Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
    But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?

    Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.

    Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
    There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.

    Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.

    I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
    Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...

    • Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.

    • Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.

    • Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.

    • Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.

    • Stop the boats - :shrug:

    He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
    Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
    The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.

    Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
    Why would he bother? It would be as pointless me issuing my plans for managing the England football team to world cup glory in 2026.
    That's like saying why bother fighting hopeless or safe seats.

    If you don't seriously aspire to govern you risk not even motivating your base to come out.
    They're not going to come out.

    A good 75% of the ACTIVISTS in my local party are not feeling motivated. God only knows what the voter base is like.

    If only we had a year of polls showing Sunak is a failed leader, some on the backbenches might make a move...
    The trouble is that Sunak comes across as the school swat.
    He also has a puzzling inability to set out any kind of vision as to where he wants to take the country, let alone persuade people to buy into it. That's the difference, I think, between an average politician and a leader. Like Gordon Brown Sunak can fill in some of the details in somebody else's vision, but has none of his own. And it's also the main reason why Sunak, though probably pretty good as a junior minister, was criminally over-promoted as a senior Cabinet Minister, let alone as PM.
    For me, one of the most off-putting things about Sunak is his disdain for politics. It's not just that he lacks a vision, it's that he doesn't seem to see the point of having a vision.

    That's not something you can say about Brown - he fully understood that the point of achieving power is to do something with it (it's just that he had lost sight of what that something might be)

    As Hyufd has pointed out, Sunak has no history of being a party member or activist before becoming an MP. He doesn't seem to enjoy the job much. He shows very little interest in leaving any sort of legacy, or in what might happen to his party after he steps down.

    It's clear that he's keen to work hard in the pursuit of success, and that's commendable. But a good PM has to be rather more than that.
    Sunak sees himself as CEO of the UK yes more than PM of the UK, he could easily have been New Labour or Orange Book LD, the Conservative Party was just a vehicle for his ambition. He has no great ideological vision
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,688
    Taz said:
    Hard call: support Gaza, lose the Jews, lose the election. Support Israel, lose the Muslims, lose the election. We really should start betting on Trump.
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,859
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    One of the worst airport lounges I have been to was Kenya Air at Nairobi

    The airport was crowded, smelly and hideous so I headed to the lounge with great vigour, only to discover that the "lounge" was the size of a garden shed, and it was even more smelly crowded and hideous than the airport. and the only "free stuff" was a machine pumping out cold drinks and people were actually FIGHTING over the chance to use it

    I retreated to some corridor and sat on my bags

    Always fly from Barra. None of these problems arise. And they have more scheduled flights than the whole of North Korea. Delays sometimes when the tide is in.

    https://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport
    Campbelton (Macrahanish) is also a short fun flight from Glasgow - and probably the biggest mismatch between terminal building and runway size!
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,520
    Good morning everyone from overseas.

    There are plenty of people who find SKS insipid, don’t like Labour, and want them to fail. All of which I understand and respect.

    But George Galloway is not the answer.
This discussion has been closed.