The changing face of the electorate – politicalbetting.com

System

The changing face of the electorate – politicalbetting.com

Laws allowing 16-year-olds to vote in elections could be introduced as early as next year, a Labour minister has said ??https://t.co/IlfrzrgcMW

Read the full story here

GIN1138

First - Like Reform in the polls in 2025?

(It's going to happen, unfortunately)

Carnyx

Now if Westminster also gets enough seats for all MPs, and proper electronic voting buttons instead of being herded like the meatpacking pens in Chicago in Upton Sinclair's novel, it might begin to catch up with the later 20th century.

RobD

Ugh, votes for children.

GIN1138

RobD said:

Ugh, votes for children.

I heard Nigel is doing well with kids on TikTok, so that may end up being a policy that blows up in Labour's face?

StillWaters

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Casino_Royale

Will it?

Be quite funny if Labour do this and a plurality of those voting go for Reform next time.

JosiasJessop

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

TheScreamingEagles

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

The question is will anybody on the Labour side be as dumb as Jacob Rees-Mogg when it comes to this?

I am in favour of 16/17 year olds having the vote after the Indyref.

StillWaters

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

RobD

GIN1138 said:

RobD said:

Ugh, votes for children.

I heard Nigel is doing well with kids on TikTok, so that may end up being a policy that blows up in Labour's face?

We can but hope.

ydoethur

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

tlg86

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

I voted in the 2005 GE at 18 and I think that was too young to be honest.

viewcode

All together now... "One of Viewcode's Rants is infantilised adults and adultised children. We need a bright shining line between adult and child, and that cutoff should be by age".

Over the past, what, 20? years, that line has become blurred and seems to move up and down depending on whatever. Last time I bought this up people were kind enough to explain that a wide range is historically not unusual, and I take the point, but we should be making it narrower, not wider. I knew about the Catholic Age of Reason (7? 8?) which is frankly ridiculous (apologies to my Marian colleagues). I'd go for 16 or 18: younger than that is child abuse, older than that is stupid. If a child becomes an adult at 16, then a voting age of 16 is valid. If 17 or more, than a voting age of 16 is invalid.

Mexicanpete

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

I called my Congressman and he said quote, "I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"

SandyRentool

Why have it based on age? Base it on a "fitness to vote" test. That way, those who are too immature and those who have sadly lost their mental capability in old age would both be disenfranchised. However, the 12 year old prodigy and the 100 year old who is still sharp as a tack both get a vote.

ydoethur

SandyRentool said:

Why have it based on age? Base it on a "fitness to vote" test. That way, those who are too immature and those who have sadly lost their mental capability in old age would both be disenfranchised. However, the 12 year old prodigy and the 100 year old who is still sharp as a tack both get a vote.

MPs won't agree to anything that would disenfranchise them!

rcs1000

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

Casino_Royale

Gerrymandering doesn't work, as the last administration found out with voter ID.

pm215

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

JosiasJessop

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

Fair enough.

I was against photo ID as the 'problem' with personation did not seem deep enough (despite the report) to require that change, especially given the issues it would cause.

I'm currently against a change to 16 because of various questions: what problem(s) is this designed to solve?; why 16?; and what consequences will the change have?

Although I'd be more likely to support a change to 16 over the Photo ID change.

(When it comes to voting systems and processes; I think caution in change is admirable - just as long as it does not become "no change".)

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves,

Please tell me even Trump and Musk have not been mad enough to propose that.

BartholomewRoberts

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

I'd love to see some serious reform, especially on issues like planning, but I'm not holding my breath and am expecting the government to flunk it.

If they do, then the assisted dying bill is possibly the most important and positive thing the government might do this entire Parliament. It is one of the "more important things".

OldKingCole

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

TBH I'd far rather they sorted out the fiasco that is photo ID. If you can't be trusted to drive a car at 16 why should you be trusted to vote?

CHart

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

Brilliant post there. Real value added.

CHart

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

Also remember if they send nude photos of themselves they are producing child porn.

solarflare

OldKingCole said:

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

TBH I'd far rather they sorted out the fiasco that is photo ID. If you can't be trusted to drive a car at 16 why should you be trusted to vote?

The flipside to that is why are we allowing 16 year old kids to join the army? Are we that desperate?

williamglenn

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

rottenborough

No taxation without representation. Seems a slam dunk case to me - give the vote at 16.

williamglenn

rottenborough said:

No taxation without representation. Seems a slam dunk case to me - give the vote at 16.

So no income tax for non-citizens?

ydoethur

rottenborough said:

No taxation without representation. Seems a slam dunk case to me - give the vote at 16.

Don't children pay VAT?

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

No taxation without representation. Seems a slam dunk case to me - give the vote at 16.

Don't children pay VAT?

And income tax, and CGT.

Edit: but not NI (but some on PB argue that isn't a tax).

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Nigelb

Key driver of Honda + Nissan: National security.

"Ministry officials noted that the government’s wider mission included the protection of Japan’s industrial base, meaning it broadly supported a deal that appeared to preserve that."

Honda and Nissan unveil plan for $58bn merger by 2026
https://x.com/dunne_insights/status/1871216111397540230

dixiedean

Mam "This paper (Mail) should be banned".
Me "Stop buying it then".
Mam "I have to buy it so I know what they are saying".

Mexicanpete

Nigelb said:

Key driver of Honda + Nissan: National security.

"Ministry officials noted that the government’s wider mission included the protection of Japan’s industrial base, meaning it broadly supported a deal that appeared to preserve that."

Honda and Nissan unveil plan for $58bn merger by 2026
https://x.com/dunne_insights/status/1871216111397540230

Hmm, that would presumably include Mitsubishi too. The ghost of British Leyland is waving fron the hard shoulder.

CatMan

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes for the Democrats. Let's do it!

rcs1000

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

I oppose it, because if you're not old enough to enter into a contract on your own, you're not old enough to vote.

I also oppose the voter ID measures as proposed, but would be happy with additional voter ID protections, so long as they include sensible alternative routes for those who forgot their passport. (I.e. some method of casting a provisional vote, that could be later cured in the event of a close race. Or photos and signatures being taken of voters without ID. I'd also be a lot less sceptical of voter security laws if they didn't leave an absolutely massive hole regarding postal voting.)

boulay

solarflare said:

OldKingCole said:

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

TBH I'd far rather they sorted out the fiasco that is photo ID. If you can't be trusted to drive a car at 16 why should you be trusted to vote?

The flipside to that is why are we allowing 16 year old kids to join the army? Are we that desperate?

Although they can’t serve in front line roles until 18. So for a 16 year old it’s probably not too different to some of our more grim boarding schools.

Essexit

Trusted to work, pay taxes, serve in the armed forces, soon to vote as well, but a lifetime ban on buying cigarettes. Batty.

Mexicanpete

RobD said:

Ugh, votes for children.

I'm all for expanding the franchise even if that eventually means voting for a fash friendly PM. Although I suspect we would be more likely to do that if we raised the minimum franchise age to 60.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

No taxation without representation. Seems a slam dunk case to me - give the vote at 16.

So no income tax for non-citizens?

We could be like Switzerland, and allow non-citizens to negotiate with the tax authorities about how much to pay.

Mexicanpete

So I've been away a couple of days and national treasure Leon is now no more. I miss all the excitement.

NickPalmer

SandyRentool said:

Why have it based on age? Base it on a "fitness to vote" test. That way, those who are too immature and those who have sadly lost their mental capability in old age would both be disenfranchised. However, the 12 year old prodigy and the 100 year old who is still sharp as a tack both get a vote.

In principle I think that's right (if not entirely seriously proposed?). In practice testing 70 million people would be a distraction that we can't afford. But there's a case for not having an age limit at all, and leaving it to individuals to decide if they're able to make a choice.

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

ydoethur

CatMan said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes for the Democrats. Let's do it!

Am I right in thinking that if England were a state in the United States it would be by a very big margin the largest state by population?

StillWaters

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

I called my Congressman and he said quote, "I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"

That’s a fun song

StillWaters

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

Sure you can come up with a logical construct. But they majored on alleged gerrymandering by trying to manipulate the shape of the electorate in the Tories’ interests as their reason for opposing it.

So they are stuck with that position - no post facto realignments allowed

kinabalu

CatMan said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes for the Democrats. Let's do it!

Would have kept Trump out. I think I'd give up our sovereignty for that. Just as a temporary emergency measure you understand.

rcs1000

SandyRentool said:

Why have it based on age? Base it on a "fitness to vote" test. That way, those who are too immature and those who have sadly lost their mental capability in old age would both be disenfranchised. However, the 12 year old prodigy and the 100 year old who is still sharp as a tack both get a vote.

I believe that's how it works in Russia.

The test has one question: "Do you believe Vladimir Putin is the greatest living Russian, and should be President for life?"

Should you answer that one correctly, you get to vote in elections.

Mexicanpete

StillWaters said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

I called my Congressman and he said quote, "I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"

That’s a fun song

Eddie Cochrane, who met his demise in a Ford Consul taxi on the A4 between Bath and Chippenham. There really "ain't no cure for the summertime blues".

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

Why have it based on age? Base it on a "fitness to vote" test. That way, those who are too immature and those who have sadly lost their mental capability in old age would both be disenfranchised. However, the 12 year old prodigy and the 100 year old who is still sharp as a tack both get a vote.

I believe that's how it works in Russia.

The test has one question: "Do you believe Vladimir Putin is the greatest living Russian, and should be President for life?"

Should you answer that one correctly, you get to vote in elections.

Should you not do so, he's the President for at least the rest of your life. All five minutes of it.

Luckyguy1983

I suspect that will hit the buffers when Sir Past it realises that 16 year olds loathe his Government as much as anyone else.

Luckyguy1983

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

williamglenn

CatMan said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes for the Democrats. Let's do it!

See also: the increase in Latino voters will guarantee a majority for the Democrats.

FF43

StillWaters said:

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

Sure you can come up with a logical construct. But they majored on alleged gerrymandering by trying to manipulate the shape of the electorate in the Tories’ interests as their reason for opposing it.

So they are stuck with that position - no post facto realignments allowed

If you think the voting franchise should be as broad as possible and barriers to voting as low as possible, votes at 16 and no ID cards is the consistent combo.

kinabalu

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

One increases participation the other dampens it. So you can perfectly well support one and not the other with a straight face and an unblemished heart.

ydoethur

Luckyguy1983 said:

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

That's 12 in your part of the world:

https://www.mygov.scot/young-people-police

CatMan

ydoethur said:

CatMan said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes for the Democrats. Let's do it!

Am I right in thinking that if England were a state in the United States it would be by a very big margin the largest state by population?

According to Wikipedia (which I seem to remember is something you love as a source of accurate information...) California is the most populous state with 39 million while England has 57 million.

StillWaters

ydoethur said:

CatMan said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes
for the Democrats. Let's do it!

Am I right in thinking that if England were a state in the United States it would be by a very big margin the largest state by population?

England is 57.7m and California 39.0m

So depends on how you define “very”. I’d argue it’s only a “big margin”

ydoethur

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

CatMan said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes
for the Democrats. Let's do it!

Am I right in thinking that if England were a state in the United States it would be by a very big margin the largest state by population?

England is 57.7m and California 39.0m

So depends on how you define “very”. I’d argue it’s only a “big margin”

Getting on for 50% larger sounds 'very big' to me.

Luckyguy1983

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

That's 12 in your part of the world:

https://www.mygov.scot/young-people-police

Interesting and something I wasn't aware of - but from that article, the process is widely different.

StillWaters

Mexicanpete said:

StillWaters said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

I called my Congressman and he said quote, "I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"

That’s a fun song

Eddie Cochrane, who met his demise in a Ford Consul taxi on the A4 between Bath and Chippenham. There really "ain't no cure for the summertime blues".

Was he really only 21?

kinabalu

Luckyguy1983 said:

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

Votes at 10 then?

StillWaters

FF43 said:

StillWaters said:

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

Sure you can come up with a logical construct. But they majored on alleged gerrymandering by trying to manipulate the shape of the electorate in the Tories’ interests as their reason for opposing it.

So they are stuck with that position - no post facto realignments allowed

If you think the voting franchise should be as broad as possible and barriers to voting as low as possible, votes at 16 and no ID cards is the consistent combo.

But that’s not the argument people used

Northern_Al

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

StillWaters

kinabalu said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

One increases participation the other dampens it. So you can perfectly well support one and not the other with a straight face and an unblemished heart.

If only they had…

Mexicanpete

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

That's 12 in your part of the world:

https://www.mygov.scot/young-people-police

I thought Luckyboy lived in the other Moscow not the one in Ayrshire.

StillWaters

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

CatMan said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

Leon said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

This is imbecility, but imbecility that we have to take seriously.

Trump says US owning Greenland ‘absolute necessity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5053319-trump-greenland-purchase/

Greenland might say Yes

It’s not up to them. It’s up to people on random bulletin boards.

Hah

If Trump offered the UK American statehood, and we were allowed to swerve American gun law, avoid the American healthcare system, and find some compromise over the monarchy where we get to keep it but they don't have to adopt it, I would absolutely say Yes

Probably I'm alone in PB. on that

I will never get over the propensity of the rich to be patriotic to every country but their own. What was the point of Brexit if the first thing you do is to kneel to another country? First it was CANZUK, now it's USA.

There's a sense in which CANZ and the USA are not really foreign but part of Greater Britain.

Yes. And that sense was "we used to be close in the past but aren't any more". There is a difference between alliances and identities, and the British aren't American, Canadian, whatevs. May and Goodhart were correct about "citizens of nowhere", but since when was being right an advantage in politics?

On the other hand, the growth of the internet means that we have never been closer. We share memes on social media and are part of the same political conversation. In addition the rise of China means that we will inevitably be pushed closer together geopolitically as well.

The UK becoming part of the USA would guarantee 70 or so electoral college votes
for the Democrats. Let's do it!

Am I right in thinking that if England were a state in the United States it would be by a very big margin the largest state by population?

England is 57.7m and California 39.0m

So depends on how you define “very”. I’d argue it’s only a “big margin”

Getting on for 50% larger sounds 'very big' to me.

Sub 50% doesn’t really cut the mustard I’m afraid

Luckyguy1983

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

Votes at 10 then?

So Ydoether indicated (is it 10 in England??) but not to big boy gaol.

Luckyguy1983

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

On the 2nd day, he rested.

StillWaters

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

Watch Fox and eat burgers?

Pulpstar

16 and 17 year old girls probably go green with the boys voting reform lol

Mexicanpete

StillWaters said:

Mexicanpete said:

StillWaters said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

I called my Congressman and he said quote, "I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"

That’s a fun song

Eddie Cochrane, who met his demise in a Ford Consul taxi on the A4 between Bath and Chippenham. There really "ain't no cure for the summertime blues".

Was he really only 21?

Apparently after the Buddy Holly/Richie Valens/Big Bopper plane crash he was very nervous about flying. So his accident on a country road in Wiltshire was somewhat ironic.

kinabalu

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

Votes at 10 then?

So Ydoether indicated (is it 10 in England??) but not to big boy gaol.

Yep. Ten down here.

Northern_Al

Apparently, sales of Summertime Blues have rocketed over here since July 5th.

kinabalu

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

And on the 2nd day and every day after that He rested.

Mexicanpete

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left ... on day two.

Corrected for you.

Foxy

solarflare said:

OldKingCole said:

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

TBH I'd far rather they sorted out the fiasco that is photo ID. If you can't be trusted to drive a car at 16 why should you be trusted to vote?

The flipside to that is why are we allowing 16 year old kids to join the army? Are we that desperate?

I don't think they can serve overseas until they are 18.

kinabalu

Mexicanpete said:

StillWaters said:

Mexicanpete said:

StillWaters said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

If they are old enough to vote at 16, why are they not old enough to marry* or leave school?

*Yes, I know the law is different in Scotland.

I called my Congressman and he said quote, "I'd like to help you son but you're too young to vote"

That’s a fun song

Eddie Cochrane, who met his demise in a Ford Consul taxi on the A4 between Bath and Chippenham. There really "ain't no cure for the summertime blues".

Was he really only 21?

Apparently after the Buddy Holly/Richie Valens/Big Bopper plane crash he was very nervous about flying. So his accident on a country road in Wiltshire was somewhat ironic.

Like rain on your wedding day.

Nigelb

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

No, there’ll always be more stuff to fuck up.
Mexico wasn’t destroyed in a day, as they say.

kinabalu

Luckyguy1983 said:

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

On the 2nd day, he rested.

Beat me to the draw there. I'm dead.

Taz

Christmas TV is shite but @ydoethur @viewcode @bondegezou dont forget War Games in colour is on BBC4 tonight and after it is a ghost story for Xmas from the truly magnificent Mark Gatiss.

Luckyguy1983

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

My own personal view is that if you're not old enough to be punished for a crime, you're not old enough to vote.

Votes at 10 then?

So Ydoether indicated (is it 10 in England??) but not to big boy gaol.

Yep. Ten down here. (quoted wrong comment)

Spooky.

Taz

Pulpstar said:

16 and 17 year old girls probably go green with the boys voting reform lol

How many will even bother voting.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

No, there’ll always be more stuff to fuck up.
Mexico wasn’t destroyed in a day, as they say.

Unless he hits the nuclear button as part of his strategy to invade Mexico, Greenland, Panama and possibly California all at the same time.

ydoethur

Taz said:

Christmas TV is shite but @ydoethur @viewcode @bondegezou dont forget War Games in colour is on BBC4 tonight and after it is a ghost story for Xmas from the truly magnificent Mark Gatiss.

Oddly I've never actually seen a full Patrick Troughton serial right through - only surviving snippets.

kinabalu

Taz said:

Christmas TV is shite but @ydoethur @viewcode @bondegezou dont forget War Games in colour is on BBC4 tonight and after it is a ghost story for Xmas from the truly magnificent Mark Gatiss.

And The Snowman.

Stuartinromford

Luckyguy1983 said:

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FPT:

Here's a silly one.

If the United States does something stupid, like make Bitcoin part of national reserves, it will have the impact of driving energy prices through the roof.

Why?

Because the higher the Bitcoin price, the greater the value of Bitcoin mined. And the greater the value of Bitcoin mined, the more it becomes financially viable to spend money to mine Bitcoin.

Essentially, the amount of money spent on Bitcoin mining will be 90% of the value of Bitcoin mined.

Currently (and for the next four years) around 13,500 Bitcoin are mined per month.

So, if Bitcoin were (say) $1m. Then 90% of $13.5 billion (say $12.3bn) would be spent on electricity for Bitcoin mining.

Per month.

That would send electricity prices through the roof in most developed economies. To put it in context, that's about 3x the amount of energy that got taken off the market by the closing of the gas pipelines out of Russia.

The US doing something stupid under Trump is pretty much a given.
The question is really how many stupid things. And how far will they take them.

Here's another one.

https://x.com/Craig_A_Spencer/status/1870910690917257625
It’s being reported that the Trump administration plans to withdraw from the World Health Organization on day one.

This is not a huge surprise.

But it IS an absolutely stupid and self-defeating move.

And I say this as a longtime critic of the WHO…

The list of things that Trump's going to do on day one gets longer and longer.
He's going to have fuck all left to do on day two.

On the 2nd day, he rested.

And people looked at the consequences of his actions and said "Oh My God".

solarflare

Foxy said:

solarflare said:

OldKingCole said:

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

TBH I'd far rather they sorted out the fiasco that is photo ID. If you can't be trusted to drive a car at 16 why should you be trusted to vote?

The flipside to that is why are we allowing 16 year old kids to join the army? Are we that desperate?

I don't think they can serve overseas until they are 18.

Seems all the more reason to not bother signing them up till they're 18 anyway.

Luckyguy1983

Poor Leon getting sin-binned for AI chat on Chrimbo. I feel responsible.

Taz

ydoethur said:

Taz said:

Christmas TV is shite but @ydoethur @viewcode @bondegezou dont forget War Games in colour is on BBC4 tonight and after it is a ghost story for Xmas from the truly magnificent Mark Gatiss.

Oddly I've never actually seen a full Patrick Troughton serial right through - only surviving snippets.

In spite of your avatar pic !

Treat yourself, watch Invasion inc the animation. Sags a little in 2 and 3 but it is really superb

DecrepiterJohnL

Essexit said:

Trusted to work, pay taxes, serve in the armed forces, soon to vote as well, but a lifetime ban on buying cigarettes. Batty.

Not even trusted to use social media soon.

Taz

kinabalu said:

Taz said:

Christmas TV is shite but @ydoethur @viewcode @bondegezou dont forget War Games in colour is on BBC4 tonight and after it is a ghost story for Xmas from the truly magnificent Mark Gatiss.

And The Snowman.

Ooh, thanks, not spotted that. Another treat.

Mexicanpete

Luckyguy1983 said:

Poor Leon getting sin-binned for AI chat on Chrimbo. I feel responsible.

We can just consider it as your early Christmas gift to the nation.

GIN1138

Luckyguy1983 said:

Poor Leon getting sin-binned for AI chat on Chrimbo. I feel responsible.

He'll be back - Like the Ghost Of Christmas Past, Present AND Future combined... 🙏

Luckyguy1983

GIN1138 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Poor Leon getting sin-binned for AI chat on Chrimbo. I feel responsible.

He'll be back - Like the Ghost Of Christmas Past, Present AND Future combined... 🙏

Fake-ob Marley.

eek

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Essexit said:

Trusted to work, pay taxes, serve in the armed forces, soon to vote as well, but a lifetime ban on buying cigarettes. Batty.

Not even trusted to use social media soon.

Being perfectly honest I would happily ban an awful lot of social media - if the algorithm isn’t show you everything in chronological order it’s feeding you content designed to keep you there and that isn’t good

FF43

OldKingCole said:

pm215 said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

StillWaters said:

Of course they are not doing this for perceived political advantage.

Will it be condemned on here by those who were so opposed to Voter ID measures?

Well, I was opposed to Voter Photo ID, and I'm opposed to this.

Which is entirely reasonable - I disagree but your position is consistent in not liking change 😉

It’s the hypocritics I dislike

I don't have a strong view on the voting age question, but I think you can be consistent in both:

* disapproving of voter photo ID because it reduces the number of people who vote
* approving of reducing the voting age because it increases the number of people who vote

I think I would file changing the voting age in the same bucket as the assisted dying bill: probably on balance reasonable, but I would really rather the government kept its focus on more important things. At least this one was in the manifesto...

TBH I'd far rather they sorted out the fiasco that is photo ID. If you can't be trusted to drive a car at 16 why should you be trusted to vote?

I see votes at 16 as an opportunity. Voting like many things is a learnt activity and allowing it while at school means it can be brought in with other learning. The age threshold is otherwise arbitrary with no right or wrong whether it's 16 or 18.

Votes at 16 do seem to get strong pushback on here, but in Scotland we do already have votes at 16 with no controversy at all.

Fysics_Teacher

Re: votes at 16. I teach too many 16 year olds to think giving them the vote is a good idea.

Roger

Mexicanpete said:

So I've been away a couple of days and national treasure Leon is now no more. I miss all the excitement.

It's like a 12 year old running around a classroom scribbling "FUCK" on a blackboard. Just too boring. I don't even read the site if I see him here. I'm sure he's attention seeking because he's lonely but there are more deserving charities this time of year