Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PaddyPower offering betting market on whether Cameron will

SystemSystem Posts: 12,137
edited May 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PaddyPower offering betting market on whether Cameron will face a leadership challenge

There’s definitely “something in the air” about the Conservatives at the moment and I’m one of many, I guess, who’ve had a punt on him facing a leadership challenge before GE2015.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    @ Southam

    The issue, surely, is that you could make the same challenge in respect of any culture. Plato's point I think is that people are much slower to scoff at the existence of Asian, or Chinese, or black cultures than at the idea of an indigenous English culture.

    If you Google the term "no such thing as Asian culture" you get 15,000 results; changing the word "Asian" to "British" gets you 19,000 results. The former term is likely to yield results from around the world, and the highest link are religion-related, whereas the latter would yield only UK results. My inference is that the latter claim is heard much more in the UK.

    It doesn't follow that all those on the left think this, but it does seem to be something that only those on the left would think.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    @ Southam

    The issue, surely, is that you could make the same challenge in respect of any culture. Plato's point I think is that people are much slower to scoff at the existence of Asian, or Chinese, or black cultures than at the idea of an indigenous English culture.

    If you Google the term "no such thing as Asian culture" you get 15,000 results; changing the word "Asian" to "British" gets you 19,000 results. The former term is likely to yield results from around the world, and the highest link are religion-related, whereas the latter would yield only UK results. My inference is that the latter claim is heard much more in the UK.

    It doesn't follow that all those on the left think this, but it does seem to be something that only those on the left would think.

    I am not sure that claim stands up to much scrutiny. If you are, for example, a right wing English nationalist, why would you believe that there is an all-encompassing British culture? As some UKIP supporters on here have said - they know nothing about, have no interest in and feel no bond with Scotland. If there were an easy-to-define British cultural bond, would that be the case? I doubt it.

    I would certainly scoff at the idea of a Asian or black cultures. The idea that a tribesman in Papua New Guinea has anything at all in common culturally with a millionaire English footballer is absurd, as I am sure that everyone would agree. Likewise, an Iranian moslem will have few popints of contact with a secularist from Japan.

    People from the UK write about UK cultural issues because those are the ones that most interest them.

  • JohnWheatleyJohnWheatley Posts: 141
    Message to JackW

    Is a there a rider to your speculative hunch that Ed M will never be PM

    Lets call it the Francois Hollande caveat. In the event that Cameron makes such a horlicks of it that Ed M does get elected by default, Ed M will then proceed to make an even bigger mess?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Turkeys will vote for a Xmas party but not Xmas.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim - FYI subprime isn't a steak sandwich either.
  • FPT
    Socrates said:

    There's a difference between a "don't know" and a "takes no position". The climate papers in question might not have addressed the question.

    Odds are, the 66% didn't address the question, as you suggest, since the paper does give a much smaller figure for papers saying "don't know," but I was drawing an analogy with opinion polls, where "don't know" is more common than "didn't say". The difference between the two isn't that important, compared to the fact that 66% of the sample couldn't be placed in either camp.

    If 66% of people in an opinion poll took no position, would you consider it reasonable to gloss over that, and just cite the split among those who did take a position? E.g reporting the poll as showing 60% Labour, 30% Tories, 10% other, when 66% actually didn't name any party they supported?

    I certainly hope not. It's a cheap trick, to inflate the percentage agreeing, and no more.

    If only 5% fell into neither camp, it might be acceptable to just give the percentage of those papers taking a side, with a footnote mentioning the 5%, but two-thirds is far too much to brush under the carpet.

    As for the thread topic, if Cameron goes, the coalition probably wouldn't long survive him. The new leader would most likely be elected on a more right-wing platform, with a list of demands Clegg couldn't accept without his party rebelling. A confidence and supply arrangement might work for a few months, but wouldn't let the new leader satisfy his party.

    Thus, a general election would soon follow, with the new Conservative leader hoping to get a bonus for being new.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim - subprime isn't one of the transformer robots.

    Nor is it the minister in charge of the underwater navy.

  • samsam Posts: 727
    tim said:

    sam said:
    Qualifying for the Champions league every year and setting the club up financially for the next two decades, what a failure.


    If we sacked him, who'd have him???!!!

    Real Madrid, PSG, French National team....

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314
    edited May 2013
    Betting newsflash:

    Seven more horses found with illegal drugs in their system from the same Newmarket stables as those found a few weeks ago.

    Includes a recent big-race winner.

    (I would put names, but there;s no way I can spell them from the way they sound on the radio).

    Edit: houses=horses. The sentence read very differently with the typo...

    2nd edit, now with link:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/22600972
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Your definition of "subprime" appears to be a loan for a house you think costs too much.

    You are more Ukip than you thought - "oooh the good old days of council house for 2 and 6 pence"

    Unless you have evidence that these loans are at a high LTV rate and going to people who can't service the debt you should stop making a bigger laughing stock of yourself than usual.

  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited May 2013
    Good piece by SeanT on Dave's plan to win GE2015 blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100217822/revealed-how-david-cameron-and-his-bullingdon-chums-will-win-the-next-general-election/
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    sam said:
    Qualifying for the Champions league every year and setting the club up financially for the next two decades, what a failure.


    Peter Hill-Wood deserves a lot of the credit - Arsenal was his family business and he has run it very well for many years.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Message to JackW

    Is a there a rider to your speculative hunch that Ed M will never be PM

    Lets call it the Francois Hollande caveat. In the event that Cameron makes such a horlicks of it that Ed M does get elected by default, Ed M will then proceed to make an even bigger mess?

    How very dare you suggest that Jack W deals in such a evil device as a "speculative hunch"

    Neither is there a rider to my exceptionally well informed intel that .... and I may have noted this previously :

    Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    tim said:

    sam said:
    Qualifying for the Champions league every year and setting the club up financially for the next two decades, what a failure.


    To wildly celebrate finishing a couple of points above a club whose wages bill is £50 million a year less than your own and whose income is over £100 million less does indicate something of a slip in standards. It used to be the case that the gap between Spurs and Arsenal was a chasm. Now it is a dodgy offside decision or a shocking penalty call.

  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    I also find it interesting that "vibrant multicultural community" produces 347,000 Google hits whereas "vibrant British community" produces only 15,000.

    The former expression actually means "conurbation with a very high percentage of black and Asian first- and second-generation immigrants" in almost all uses. It's a convenient bit of shorthand but when you read it about Luton it's a sure sign that the writer has never been to Luton.

    The word "vibrant" seems to be used a lot in this connection, but you never come across anyone describing the British that way. Only multicultural communities are ever "vibrant", and only minorities are ever a "community".

    (It always sounds a bit colonial-patronising Raj in tone to me. It makes me think of some pissed-up old Maughamesque rubber planter, knocking one back in his stengah-shifter as he gazes at the Hindi-chattering street merchants in downtown Port Blair.)

    I suppose what I am saying is that there is often an earnest sucky-up tone to the way in which cultures are discussed, unless it's English culture. To that extent I'd agree with Plato's contention.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Bond_James_Bond

    The second class/non-status awarded to the British/home culture is very obvious - if it can't be precisely defined it doesn't exist, if you're in favour of preserving it you're an Little England xenophobe and probably a racist if you're genetically White.

    If you're of any other skin colour you aren't - you're deemed to be a subset of *vibrant multiculturism* and therefore acceptable.

    It's nonsense like this that breeds intolerance and resentment - as Trevor Phillips noted over the weekend - the PC/equalities gang have degenerated into hateful name-calling. That does no one any good.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    I also find it interesting that "vibrant multicultural community" produces 347,000 Google hits whereas "vibrant British community" produces only 15,000.

    The former expression actually means "conurbation with a very high percentage of black and Asian first- and second-generation immigrants" in almost all uses. It's a convenient bit of shorthand but when you read it about Luton it's a sure sign that the writer has never been to Luton.

    The word "vibrant" seems to be used a lot in this connection, but you never come across anyone describing the British that way. Only multicultural communities are ever "vibrant", and only minorities are ever a "community".

    (It always sounds a bit colonial-patronising Raj in tone to me. It makes me think of some pissed-up old Maughamesque rubber planter, knocking one back in his stengah-shifter as he gazes at the Hindi-chattering street merchants in downtown Port Blair.)

    I suppose what I am saying is that there is often an earnest sucky-up tone to the way in which cultures are discussed, unless it's English culture. To that extent I'd agree with Plato's contention.

    That's because the "vibrant multicultural community" links are from across the entire world. When I did that google I got links to sites in the US, Australia, New Zealand and the UK on the first page.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    Plato, I am sure may very adequately speak for herself but I believe she meant that for her personally being English included those features not that other other influences precluded them for being English.

    Jack W, James Kelly, Easterross and MaxPB are all Scots but all of us derive our Scottishness from different aspects of our respective heritage, histories, beliefs, religon, family, education and experience.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    JackW said:

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    Plato, I am sure may very adequately speak for herself but I believe she meant that for her personally being English included those features not that other other influences precluded them for being English.

    Jack W, James Kelly, Easterross and MaxPB are all Scots but all of us derive our Scottishness from different aspects of our respective heritage, histories, beliefs, religon, family, education and experience.

    Well, exactly. So to talk about a single and homogenous English or Scottish culture/identity makes no sense. Plato is perfectly entitled to her culture and identity. Just as others are entitled to theirs.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983
    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,693
    If we look at the form book the Tories do bring down leaders they fear will be an electoral liability

    However, Cameron is polling ahead of his party so it's far from clear that he is an electoral liability. In any case, even if he were a drag on the party, it would have to be shown to the MPs both that someone else could do better (and stood a good chance of being elected), and that the damage sustained from going through the process would be worth it, if it's to happen.

    In any case, the form book works both ways: John Major was not brought down despite the problems his party faced in the mid-90s. In fact, only one Conservative PM has been removed in office since WWII (though Eden would have been had he not jumped first). The rest all either saw their term out or retired / resigned.

    I don't expect a vote of no confidence because I don't think the MPs think it would do any good. I also suspect that the Tory right will recognise that a new leader couldn't act very much differently while in coalition so what's the point of acting this side of an election?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    JackW said:

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    Plato, I am sure may very adequately speak for herself but I believe she meant that for her personally being English included those features not that other other influences precluded them for being English.

    Jack W, James Kelly, Easterross and MaxPB are all Scots but all of us derive our Scottishness from different aspects of our respective heritage, histories, beliefs, religon, family, education and experience.

    Precisely. That Mr SO is seeking to negate my heritage is clear - bet he'd never do it if I was culturally from say Pakistan or India or the Caribbean et al and happened to also live in the UK. I'd be simply reflecting/celebrating my ancestry blah blah and making sure my offspring knew their place in history blah blah.

    It's as plain as a pike-staff what's going on here - and millions of voters are showing it at the ballot box. In desperation almost a 1m voted BNP FFS in 2009, has the Left learned nothing in the last 4yrs?

    Apparently very little, it seems.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited May 2013
    On topic: As Labour found to its cost and my profit in 2008-2010, it's very hard to depose a sitting PM even if you want to, which they did. And that was Brown, by universal consensus the worst PM for yonks. It would certainly be very odd to try to depose Cameron, who is by any standards a very good PM, and who is more popular than his party. To do so just at the time when it is clear that the economy is on the turn, when the the big political transformations in education and welfare reform are only just beginning, when Ed Milband looks more and more an empty vessel, when sticking with Cameron's strategy offers the only hope in a generation to improve our relationship with the EU... well, the phrase 'swivel-eyed lunacy' springs to mind.

    Of course, parties don't always act rationally, and I suppose there's an outside chance that the loons have taken over the parliamentary party. More likely, though, these are Westminster-bubble stories worked up by excitable journalists.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    If we look at the form book the Tories do bring down leaders they fear will be an electoral liability

    However, Cameron is polling ahead of his party so it's far from clear that he is an electoral liability. In any case, even if he were a drag on the party, it would have to be shown to the MPs both that someone else could do better (and stood a good chance of being elected), and that the damage sustained from going through the process would be worth it, if it's to happen.

    In any case, the form book works both ways: John Major was not brought down despite the problems his party faced in the mid-90s. In fact, only one Conservative PM has been removed in office since WWII (though Eden would have been had he not jumped first). The rest all either saw their term out or retired / resigned.

    I don't expect a vote of no confidence because I don't think the MPs think it would do any good. I also suspect that the Tory right will recognise that a new leader couldn't act very much differently while in coalition so what's the point of acting this side of an election?

    Order of drag on ticket.

    Cameron > MPs > swivel eyed loon Chairmen.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983
    @MrJones

    In what way does the phrase "Even if those figures are true - which i doubt very much" not suggest I am lying?

    Either apologise and retract the allegation.
    Or enter into a wager with me.

    Your call.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,889

    Good piece by SeanT on Dave's plan to win GE2015 blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100217822/revealed-how-david-cameron-and-his-bullingdon-chums-will-win-the-next-general-election/

    I see SeanT is trailing his lines here on PB!
  • JohnWheatleyJohnWheatley Posts: 141
    OT

    Having just seen the stuff about the Labour amendment to the Gay Marriage bill, does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    Plato, I am sure may very adequately speak for herself but I believe she meant that for her personally being English included those features not that other other influences precluded them for being English.

    Jack W, James Kelly, Easterross and MaxPB are all Scots but all of us derive our Scottishness from different aspects of our respective heritage, histories, beliefs, religon, family, education and experience.

    Precisely. That Mr SO is seeking to negate my heritage is clear - bet he'd never do it if I was culturally from say Pakistan or India or the Caribbean et al and happened to also live in the UK. I'd be simply reflecting/celebrating my ancestry blah blah and making sure my offspring knew their place in history blah blah.

    It's as plain as a pike-staff what's going on here - and millions of voters are showing it at the ballot box. In desperation almost a 1m voted BNP FFS in 2009, has the Left learned nothing in the last 4yrs?

    Apparently very little, it seems.
    In what way am I trying to negate your heritage? I have no idea what it is. Maybe it is the same as mine, which is 100% English.

    Can you give me a single example or are you just making things up because it is what you want to believe?

    Cue response relating to pinheads ....

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    OT

    Having just seen the stuff about the Labour amendment to the Gay Marriage bill, does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?

    IHT ?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?

    These numbers are not meant to be taken seriously. Pity the poor official who was given a day to make it up.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.


    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.
    Well put. I personally found Northern India a place where I felt instantly at home - it may be a leftover from the Raj or whatever - but I'd move there without any hesitation. I felt the same in rural USA around Utah - there's a shared set of cultural values re manners/courtesy/respect that are impossible to define but very plain in reality.

    Anthropology is something I wish I was much more familiar with - it seems a fascinating subject most of us are ignorant of, peculiar given its about our own species...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314
    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.

    I'm very much in agreement (again!)

    I have no doubt we are effecting the climate. But whether the scale of the effects are worth the vast costs that we are being forced to pay is another matter.

    What worries me is the modelling of the effects. The climate is a massively complex system, and we only understand a small fraction of how it works. Since models are very susceptible not just to the data passed in, but also the assumptions made in the model itself, I treat them with a very large dose of salt.

    I am aware that many different models are run with different assumptions, but there are still massive gaps in the base knowledge with which the models are run.

    Add in inaccuracies in the input data, and there is room for a great amount of doubt.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim quoting Dan Hodges - makes Dan a legitimate source for future opinion on Labour..
  • samsam Posts: 727
    edited May 2013

    tim said:

    sam said:
    Qualifying for the Champions league every year and setting the club up financially for the next two decades, what a failure.


    To wildly celebrate finishing a couple of points above a club whose wages bill is £50 million a year less than your own and whose income is over £100 million less does indicate something of a slip in standards. It used to be the case that the gap between Spurs and Arsenal was a chasm. Now it is a dodgy offside decision or a shocking penalty call.

    hahahahahahahahaha

    To be fair that looked a penalty, never a booking.

    I suppose it was a case of the boy who cried wolf

    Imagine that had been given and converted?

    Youd have won 2-0 and still finished 5th

    Spurs spend decent dough on players, your managers have just not been as good as our one




  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.


    rcs,

    I think the way to go is to be a 'lukewarmer'. Climate sensitivity to increased CO2 exists but is less than thought due to various feedback mechanisms -probably on the order of 1.5-2degC for a doubling of atmospheric C02. Enough to cause some warming but low enough that the majority of the effects can be mitigated by general economic growth and gradual de-carbonising of the economy rather than requiring a rapid deep-Greening.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,371
    Didn't Margaret Thatcher not win her vote of confidence by enough?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    tim said:

    OT

    Having just seen the stuff about the Labour amendment to the Gay Marriage bill, does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?


    It's a made up figure.
    Nobody knows how many straight couples who otherwise wouldn't get married would enter into civil partnerships.

    Dan Hodges reckons Ed miliband has saved Camerons sorry ass.

    Credit where it’s due. Ed Miliband seems to have found a clever way of throwing David Cameron a lifeline on gay marriage, while at the same time letting Ed legitimately claim that he’s stuck to his principles on civil partnerships.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100217859/ed-milibands-gay-marriage-lifeline-for-cameron-is-good-politics-but-most-importantly-its-the-right-thing-to-do/
    What I have never understood is why the government couldn't simply have had civil marriage for all and let those who are religious also have a religious service/sacrament etc (with the rules determined by the relevant religion) i.e. much as in France / Italy etc? And at the same time introduce some small marriage tax allowance thus also fulfilling a manifesto commitment?

    So everyone would be civilly married and some would also have had the religious rite. Instead of which we have civil partnerships for gays, marriage for gays and straights, a lot of bad temper and ill-feeling all round and (probably) a law which will end being challenged by some leading to yet more confusion / bad temper etc.

    All of it is an avoidable mess and a great pity since sorting out gay marriage is a good policy and Cameron sticking to his guns on it is a good thing. But why he has done so in a way which has upset his own voters when he could have done it better and differently is a mystery.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    OT

    Having just seen the stuff about the Labour amendment to the Gay Marriage bill, does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?

    Neil will know, but someone said it was a technicality on pensions.

    Frankly, if there is inequality in pensions it should be fixed regardless of all the hoo-ha about gay marriage. If someone contributes X into a pension then they should get the same out of it whether they are gay, straight, asexual or a banana.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Mr. Jessop, I agree entirely regarding climate and our lack of knowledge.

    The human-centric (the climate may be chaning and if it is we must be the cause) approach reminds me slightly of the early Church's notion that the Earth was the centre of the solar system.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    A more sensible blog on party membership.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100217832/two-modest-proposals-from-a-swivel-eyed-loon/

    "I’ve got two proposals. One is hackneyed through repetition, and might seem counter-productive. All Conservatives standing for any election should be chosen by open primary"

    "So here’s my second proposal. The party chairman should be directly elected by the membership"
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,288
    edited May 2013
    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2013
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100217757/geoffrey-howe-did-for-margaret-thatcher-now-david-cameron-is-in-his-sights/

    An amusing blog by Tebbit on his bête noire, Lord Howe.

    "One thing ..................... That is the remarkable loyalty of Lord Howe, uphill and down, through thick and thin, to neither his party nor leaders – but to Brussels."
  • samsam Posts: 727
    Cyclefree said:

    tim said:

    OT

    Having just seen the stuff about the Labour amendment to the Gay Marriage bill, does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?


    It's a made up figure.
    Nobody knows how many straight couples who otherwise wouldn't get married would enter into civil partnerships.

    Dan Hodges reckons Ed miliband has saved Camerons sorry ass.

    Credit where it’s due. Ed Miliband seems to have found a clever way of throwing David Cameron a lifeline on gay marriage, while at the same time letting Ed legitimately claim that he’s stuck to his principles on civil partnerships.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100217859/ed-milibands-gay-marriage-lifeline-for-cameron-is-good-politics-but-most-importantly-its-the-right-thing-to-do/
    What I have never understood is why the government couldn't simply have had civil marriage for all and let those who are religious also have a religious service/sacrament etc (with the rules determined by the relevant religion) i.e. much as in France / Italy etc? And at the same time introduce some small marriage tax allowance thus also fulfilling a manifesto commitment?

    So everyone would be civilly married and some would also have had the religious rite. Instead of which we have civil partnerships for gays, marriage for gays and straights, a lot of bad temper and ill-feeling all round and (probably) a law which will end being challenged by some leading to yet more confusion / bad temper etc.

    All of it is an avoidable mess and a great pity since sorting out gay marriage is a good policy and Cameron sticking to his guns on it is a good thing. But why he has done so in a way which has upset his own voters when he could have done it better and differently is a mystery.
    Perfectly sensible

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    @redukipper
    Matthew Parris on the Daily Politics show admitted he used 'swivel eyed loons' when describing the 'far-right' of the Tory Party < Charming.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983
    MikeK said:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100217757/geoffrey-howe-did-for-margaret-thatcher-now-david-cameron-is-in-his-sights/

    An amusing blog by Tebbit on his bête noire, Lord Howe.

    "One thing ..................... That is the remarkable loyalty of Lord Howe, uphill and down, through thick and thin, to neither his party nor leaders – but to Brussels."

    Whatever he did since, Lord Howe will go down as one of the greatest (and possibly the greatest) chancellor of the last 100 years.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MikeK said:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100217757/geoffrey-howe-did-for-margaret-thatcher-now-david-cameron-is-in-his-sights/

    An amusing blog by Tebbit on his bête noire, Lord Howe.

    "One thing ..................... That is the remarkable loyalty of Lord Howe, uphill and down, through thick and thin, to neither his party nor leaders – but to Brussels."

    Bingo - still him, Clarke and Hezza have made a wonderful career from it.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
  • MarchesMarches Posts: 51
    MikeK said:

    @redukipper
    Matthew Parris on the Daily Politics show admitted he used 'swivel eyed loons' when describing the 'far-right' of the Tory Party < Charming.



    Fair comment is always a defence.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    sam said:

    tim said:

    sam said:
    Qualifying for the Champions league every year and setting the club up financially for the next two decades, what a failure.


    To wildly celebrate finishing a couple of points above a club whose wages bill is £50 million a year less than your own and whose income is over £100 million less does indicate something of a slip in standards. It used to be the case that the gap between Spurs and Arsenal was a chasm. Now it is a dodgy offside decision or a shocking penalty call.

    hahahahahahahahaha

    To be fair that looked a penalty, never a booking.

    I suppose it was a case of the boy who cried wolf

    Imagine that had been given and converted?

    Youd have won 2-0 and still finished 5th

    Spurs spend decent dough on players, your managers have just not been as good as our one




    Why would Spurs have won 2-0 ??

    If a penalty had been given would it have been scored ? If scored or not the play would also have started from a different place than the actually given free kick !

    Different consequences, different play and a different match.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    sam said:

    tim said:

    sam said:
    Qualifying for the Champions league every year and setting the club up financially for the next two decades, what a failure.


    To wildly celebrate finishing a couple of points above a club whose wages bill is £50 million a year less than your own and whose income is over £100 million less does indicate something of a slip in standards. It used to be the case that the gap between Spurs and Arsenal was a chasm. Now it is a dodgy offside decision or a shocking penalty call.

    hahahahahahahahaha

    To be fair that looked a penalty, never a booking.

    I suppose it was a case of the boy who cried wolf

    Imagine that had been given and converted?

    Youd have won 2-0 and still finished 5th

    Spurs spend decent dough on players, your managers have just not been as good as our one




    Look at the wages bill. Arsenal should be finishing streets ahead of Spurs each year, just like they used to. We used to mind the gap. Now it is no longer there, despite all the financial advantages Arsenal and their manager have to call on.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    tim said:

    Neil said:

    does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?

    These numbers are not meant to be taken seriously. Pity the poor official who was given a day to make it up.

    It was £3 Bilion last week and rose to £4 Billion over the weekend.

    Maybe it was the same SpAd who does the stats for IDS and Mr Green.

  • NextNext Posts: 826

    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

    In other news, the sky is falling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny
  • samsam Posts: 727
    As Stevie & Macca would say....

    "We all know, that people are the same wherever you go...."

    http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/12/15/destruction-goan-culture-protest-plan-against-sonia-gandhi
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.
    I have a friend in Munich who claims (with some seriousness) that Hamburg culture is so alien to Bavarian culture that they shouldn't be in the same country...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.

    Perhaps. Or maybe it's that they exist, but not as monolithic cultural entities with a single identity.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,595
    Well if there is going to be a leadership challenge before 2015 now is probably the best time to do it. Next year is too busy/too late.

    I guess the last possible window is after conference this year.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,693

    Didn't Margaret Thatcher not win her vote of confidence by enough?

    Yes, that's right as far as it goes, and technically she resigned rather than was defeated. She would have lost the second round though had she gone through with it. There's plenty of evidence - despite the mythmaking since - that backbenchers were defecting wholescale after the first round not necessarily because they wanted Heseltine to win (which events subsequently proved they didn't), but because they knew Thatcher was fatally damaged.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,288
    @RCS

    Having lived (briefly) in both Hamburg and Bavaria, I should say your friend is right.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    rcs1000 said:

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.
    I have a friend in Munich who claims (with some seriousness) that Hamburg culture is so alien to Bavarian culture that they shouldn't be in the same country...
    Bavarian culture is different ! In fact, Northern Germans always seem to raise their eyebrows whenever the Bavarians are mentioned.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

    PTP:

    I'm not sure I agree. Whilst the basic greenhouse effect is elementary science in a test tube and in theory when in isolation, it is just a small part of an entire planetary system that we are nowhere near understanding. For instance, there are many competing theories about why ice ages occur; these vary from planetary orbits (Milankovitch cycles), solar output or volcanism. More likely, it will be some of these, along with many more that are hardly thought of at current.

    We also have little idea of how the seas react to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. We think that the oceans absorb more of the CO2, but where is the limit?

    There are so many other factors that make the assumptions and effects exceptionally doubtful.

    Making policy based on models of a small part of such an ill-understood system should only be done with extreme care. We would be much better working on mitigation technology that will be useful whatever happens.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.

    Perhaps. Or maybe it's that they exist, but not as monolithic cultural entities with a single identity.

    Unlikely. We have this debate on PB once a year and as ever we will eventually agree there is a high level culture which is recognisably x,y or z and then subsets and variations of it according to region.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    .

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

    PTP:

    I'm not sure I agree. Whilst the basic greenhouse effect is elementary science in a test tube and in theory when in isolation, it is just a small part of an entire planetary system that we are nowhere near understanding. For instance, there are many competing theories about why ice ages occur; these vary from planetary orbits (Milankovitch cycles), solar output or volcanism. More likely, it will be some of these, along with many more that are hardly thought of at current.

    .
    It's all down to a butterfly flapping its wings!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362
    rcs1000 said:

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.
    I have a friend in Munich who claims (with some seriousness) that Hamburg culture is so alien to Bavarian culture that they shouldn't be in the same country...
    There's probably more difference between a Munchner and someone from the Allgau or the Spessart than there is between the two metropolises.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.

    Perhaps. Or maybe it's that they exist, but not as monolithic cultural entities with a single identity.

    Unlikely. We have this debate on PB once a year and as ever we will eventually agree there is a high level culture which is recognisably x,y or z and then subsets and variations of it according to region.

    I am struggling to think of what unites me and Plato culturally, even though we are from the same place!

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    Time to sell?

    The FTSE closes at its highest level since 2000.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    @RCS

    Having lived (briefly) in both Hamburg and Bavaria, I should say your friend is right.

    In light of your "Cabaret" proclivities was that before or after the days of "Goodbye to Berlin" ?

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.

    I haven't followed through all the reasoning on the Science that dates the Earth to roughly 4.6 billion years old, but I can trust the Scientists that have worked on it in a general sense, and the process of Science as a whole, to have the answer mostly right.

    Climate Science has been a work in progress - as all Science is - for about 150 years now, and for the vast majority of that time it has been more uncertain than certain. It's only in the last few decades that the majority of Climate Scientists have come to the conclusion that the concentrations of carbon dioxide we will see with unrestrained fossil fuel will most likely lead to a dangerous rate of global warming.

    And even now there are substantial uncertainties on the details, which are there for any interested person to read about in the reports of the IPCC. Even the direct radiative impact of carbon dioxide comes with wide error bars, let alone the feedbacks.

    I don't understand why you have a problem with a trace gas at concentrations in parts per million affecting the climate. One can be poisoned by arsenic at a concentration of 1mg/kg/day. Given the standard atomic weight of Arsenic at about 75, and water at 18, this is a concentration of about 0.25 parts per million in the human body. Small concentrations can obviously have a large effect.

    It's very hard to see what can be done experimentally in Climate Science, because one does not have a spare Earth around to conduct experiments on. Thus, like Astrophysics, it is principally an observational science which relies on so-called natural experiments to test hypotheses. And, yes, also computer modelling.

    Finally, on the nature of cycles. When one sees a pendulum swinging backwards and forwards the reason it does so is because of the force of gravity. We can measure this gravitational force and model its effect on the pendulum. This gravity may be the only cause of cycles of the pendulum's motion for a very long time, until a new force is introduced (like a human hand say), which can change the motion of the pendulum from then onwards.

    So it is with the Earth's climate. Natural factors have acted to change the Earth's climate over past millennia, with cycles probably based on changes to the Earth's orbit creating one set of dominant changes, from ice age to interglacial and back again. This history does not preclude a new force from intervening and creating different changes to the climate in the future - such as our burning of fossil fuels. Suggesting otherwise is a logical fallacy.

    We should be able to observe the natural factors that act on the Earth's climate. When Climate Scientists have done so, the rough story of the 20th century is that an increase in the Sun's brightness in the early part of the 20th century, combined with a reduction in Volcanic activity, was mostly responsible for the warming that occurred in the early part of the century. However, no such natural changes can be observed to explain the warming that has occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. Instead, the natural changes would most likely have led to a modest cooling.

    These things you can be pretty sure about, because the Scientists have spent a very long time looking for alternative explanations and found none. You can also be reasonably certain that unconstrained burning of fossil fuels will lead to about 4K of warming by the end of the 21st century, and start sea level rise. It could create very large changes in rainfall patterns that would disrupt agriculture severely, and myriad other impacts, but these details are very uncertain. There is more uncertainty here than certainty, but for some reason the "sceptics" only want to argue about the bits that are more certain - observed warming, the radiative impact of carbon dioxide, etc.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,288
    @Josias

    Sounds like we reach the same conclusion for different reasons.

    I wouldn't propose an all out drive to limit AGW in the absence of clear evidence that the threat is severe. Some sensible precautions now however may well be prudent.

    Meanwhile the task of understanding the eco-system goes on.

    Incidentally, Nate is quite kind about meteorologists. He reckons that twenty years ago their predictions were little better than infored guesswork. Their accuracy has improved a lot in recent years.

    Who does he rank the worst forecasters of all? You guessed it - economists.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    edited May 2013

    sam said:

    tim said:

    sam said:
    Qualifying for the Champions league every year and setting the club up financially for the next two decades, what a failure.


    To wildly celebrate finishing a couple of points above a club whose wages bill is £50 million a year less than your own and whose income is over £100 million less does indicate something of a slip in standards. It used to be the case that the gap between Spurs and Arsenal was a chasm. Now it is a dodgy offside decision or a shocking penalty call.

    hahahahahahahahaha

    To be fair that looked a penalty, never a booking.

    I suppose it was a case of the boy who cried wolf

    Imagine that had been given and converted?

    Youd have won 2-0 and still finished 5th

    Spurs spend decent dough on players, your managers have just not been as good as our one




    Look at the wages bill. Arsenal should be finishing streets ahead of Spurs each year, just like they used to. We used to mind the gap. Now it is no longer there, despite all the financial advantages Arsenal and their manager have to call on.

    Look at the net spend on players would be another way of looking at it...

    but that doesnt suit your argument.

    Im fully aware of how much more successful than Spurs Arsenal have been over the last 25 years, but it never makes getting one over them any less enjoyable. We usually do finish streets ahead of you, despite overpaying idiots that we dont play, but cant get rid of, like Squillaci, Denilson, Bendtner & Arshavin, but youve had three fantastic seasons while we have under performed

    You know the rest

    Spurs in the 80s were a bigger club than Arsenal, with a bigger wage bill and bigger transfer kitty... You had Gazza, Lineker, Waddle, even spent over £2m on Paul Stewart when our record signing was Alan Smith at £800,000

    And we still won more than you...

    So dont come all that "oh we're only little Spurs" now youve failed again, youre big enough just not good enough.

    Alex Canfor-Dumas ‏@alexcd88 22h
    If a Spurs fan bet an Arsenal fan £1 in 95/6 on who'd finish higher that year and went double or quits each year since he'd now owe £131,072









  • NextNext Posts: 826

    Time to sell?

    The FTSE closes at its highest level since 2000.

    In real terms, or still including inflation?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983
    Gosh we're all getting het up about identity today. Can I recommend this wonderful line from English folk band Show of Hands, "We've lost St George and the Union Jack; It's my flag too, and I want it back." I would also recommend everyone reads Amartya Sen's Identity and Violence.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    Again you mention homogeneity. No-one's said that there's a homogeneous English culture. But few (aside from you, it seems) would doubt that there is an English culture, however nebulous and undefinable it may be.

    By bringing homogeneity into it, you are making it impossible to define. In other words, you have altered the argument.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.
    I have a friend in Munich who claims (with some seriousness) that Hamburg culture is so alien to Bavarian culture that they shouldn't be in the same country...
    People forget that Germany has been a country for less than 150 years.
  • samsam Posts: 727

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.

    Perhaps. Or maybe it's that they exist, but not as monolithic cultural entities with a single identity.

    Unlikely. We have this debate on PB once a year and as ever we will eventually agree there is a high level culture which is recognisably x,y or z and then subsets and variations of it according to region.
    Its not worth the argument. Some think there is, others think there isnt. No ones going to be convinced by their opponents argument

    Mind you, Id like to see the Labour Party run with the line that there was no such thing as British or English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh Identity though
  • samsam Posts: 727

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    Again you mention homogeneity. No-one's said that there's a homogeneous English culture. But few (aside from you, it seems) would doubt that there is an English culture, however nebulous and undefinable it may be.

    By bringing homogeneity into it, you are making it impossible to define. In other words, you have altered the argument.
    SHOCK!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.

    Perhaps. Or maybe it's that they exist, but not as monolithic cultural entities with a single identity.

    Unlikely. We have this debate on PB once a year and as ever we will eventually agree there is a high level culture which is recognisably x,y or z and then subsets and variations of it according to region.

    I am struggling to think of what unites me and Plato culturally, even though we are from the same place!

    you both argue in english, you use the same media, your education took place within the same framweork, you both lived in London, you both worked in PR\Comms, you both voted Blair, you think of shepherds pie and sunday roast as home cooked food, a cup of tea, pubs, you take 2 weeks off at Xmas, you're intolerably tolerant, you only go to church on family occasions, Queen, the Queen.....

    really there's quite a bit.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314
    Blue_rog said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    .

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

    PTP:

    I'm not sure I agree. Whilst the basic greenhouse effect is elementary science in a test tube and in theory when in isolation, it is just a small part of an entire planetary system that we are nowhere near understanding. For instance, there are many competing theories about why ice ages occur; these vary from planetary orbits (Milankovitch cycles), solar output or volcanism. More likely, it will be some of these, along with many more that are hardly thought of at current.

    .
    It's all down to a butterfly flapping its wings!
    My favourite (ridiculous) one was access to sex. The uptick in warmth started around the 1960s, when evil sexual promiscuity started. Think of all that warmth generated by the bodies!

    And now, with easy access to pornography worldwide, we have to add the heat generated by hundreds of millions of teenagers fapping off.

    We should stop having sex immediately...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Indeed, Mr. Jessop.

    Castration Saves The Nation!

    Abstinence is Fun!

    [My apologies to Yes, Minister for the paraphrasing].
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362
    sam said:

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    The same applies to any culture perhaps france and germany don't exist.

    Perhaps. Or maybe it's that they exist, but not as monolithic cultural entities with a single identity.

    Unlikely. We have this debate on PB once a year and as ever we will eventually agree there is a high level culture which is recognisably x,y or z and then subsets and variations of it according to region.
    Its not worth the argument. Some think there is, others think there isnt. No ones going to be convinced by their opponents argument

    Mind you, Id like to see the Labour Party run with the line that there was no such thing as British or English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh Identity though
    They'd go with definable irish, scottish ands welsh ones but deny there's an english one
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374

    Blue_rog said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    .

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

    PTP:

    I'm not sure I agree. Whilst the basic greenhouse effect is elementary science in a test tube and in theory when in isolation, it is just a small part of an entire planetary system that we are nowhere near understanding. For instance, there are many competing theories about why ice ages occur; these vary from planetary orbits (Milankovitch cycles), solar output or volcanism. More likely, it will be some of these, along with many more that are hardly thought of at current.

    .
    It's all down to a butterfly flapping its wings!
    My favourite (ridiculous) one was access to sex. The uptick in warmth started around the 1960s, when evil sexual promiscuity started. Think of all that warmth generated by the bodies!

    And now, with easy access to pornography worldwide, we have to add the heat generated by hundreds of millions of teenagers fapping off.

    We should stop having sex immediately...
    I don't understand why churches and governments spend millions of pounds a year on abstinence-only instructions when a World of Warcraft account only costs £10 a month and has a much better record of ensuring virginity.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    edited May 2013

    @ Southam

    I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.

    Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.

    That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.

    That's not what I am saying. I have yet to find a convincing rundown of what constitutes an homogenous English culture, let alone one that has been banned by the left and political correrctness - unless, that is, it was an intrinsic part of English culture to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin colour, geneder and sexual preference. For example, in the previous thread, Plato said English culture includes the CoE. I am English and my family has been here since God knows when, but the CoE means absolutely nothing to me. I am an atheist, my wife and kids are Catholic.

    From the previous thread; we agreed that there may not be a homogeneous culture per se in any large country.

    But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.

    However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.

    And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.

    Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.

    These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.

    Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.

    Again, I agree with you. There are many shared values across the UK - some shared more than others. And, yes, the fluidity is extremely important to recognise.

    So you are asking people to define something that, by your addition of the word 'homogeneous' becomes impossible to define?

    I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.

    Nope, I am arguing exactly that - there is no homogenous English culture, let alone a British one. My argument is with people who say that English culture has been banned or is sneered at. But, equally, I believe that if they want to believe that, that is up to them. Victimisation is not part of my English cultural identity, but it may be a part of theirs. Each to his/her own.
    Again you mention homogeneity. No-one's said that there's a homogeneous English culture. But few (aside from you, it seems) would doubt that there is an English culture, however nebulous and undefinable it may be.

    By bringing homogeneity into it, you are making it impossible to define. In other words, you have altered the argument.

    Talking about "an English culture" to me implies the idea that there is a single English culture; which in turn says to me a homogenous culture. If you do not agree with that interpretation then we have been arguing at cross purposes. Or, more precisely, you have been arguing with me, because I have been agreeing with everything you say!

    To go back to the very beginning I originally took issue with Plato's statement that "Something I've never understood about many Lefties on PB is why they pretend there is no English/British culture or identity".

    My point was that no PB leftie has to my knowledge ever claimed that there is no English/British identity or culture. Instead, our ideas of what they encompass probably differ from hers.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,374
    On topic, I do believe it was William Hague that said the Tory leadership is an absolute monarchy with occasional periods of regicide.

    We don't stab our leaders in the back, we stab them in the front, usually very publicly.

    Cameron could "win" a vote of confidence, but not by enough to be able to carry on.

    A bit like Thatcher in 1990.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Incidentally, Nate is quite kind about meteorologists. He reckons that twenty years ago their predictions were little better than infored guesswork. Their accuracy has improved a lot in recent years.

    Twenty years ago the supercomputers used to generate weather forecasts were about as powerful as a Samsung Galaxy S II.

    The Met Office only started running a forecast model that covered the whole globe in the late 1980s. The changes have been astonishing. I recall some stat from the Met Office along the lines that their four day forecasts today are as accurate as their one day forecasts were thirty years ago.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,362
    tim said:

    Matt Chorley ‏@MattChorley
    Google's Eric Schmidt allowed to leave No10 by the back door after Cameron refuses to challenge him over tax http://bit.ly/YUKSV3

    PR genius from Dave.

    LOL, so now Labour's party of fiscal responsibility ? You didn't do a lot about multinat tax dodging when in power, if anything you helped it along. let's face it if google were in Ed's office he'd be giving them everything they want.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,675
    edited May 2013

    Blue_rog said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    .

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

    PTP:

    I'm not sure I agree. Whilst the basic greenhouse effect is elementary science in a test tube and in theory when in isolation, it is just a small part of an entire planetary system that we are nowhere near understanding. For instance, there are many competing theories about why ice ages occur; these vary from planetary orbits (Milankovitch cycles), solar output or volcanism. More likely, it will be some of these, along with many more that are hardly thought of at current.

    .
    It's all down to a butterfly flapping its wings!
    My favourite (ridiculous) one was access to sex. The uptick in warmth started around the 1960s, when evil sexual promiscuity started. Think of all that warmth generated by the bodies!

    And now, with easy access to pornography worldwide, we have to add the heat generated by hundreds of millions of teenagers fapping off.

    We should stop having sex immediately...
    I don't understand why churches and governments spend millions of pounds a year on abstinence-only instructions when a World of Warcraft account only costs £10 a month and has a much better record of ensuring virginity.
    Hmmm.... I don't recall ever playing World of Warcraft!
    :)

    Anyway, some thoughts on the thread:

    If polling continues to be dire for the Tories and the Kippers hoover up the "dissident" vote, I can easily see some sort of challenge to Cameron's leadership, even if unsuccessful.

    Personally, I see Britishness as for more of a question of attitude rather than genetics.

    Sea level at the height of the Ice Age some 20,000 years ago was roughly 100 METRES lower than it is today.

    Yet, 5,000 years ago during the "Flandrian Transgression" (one last bout of post-glacial melting), sea level was actually roughly 5 metres HIGHER than it is today.

  • samsam Posts: 727
    Mark Bolton ‏@BoltonMark 6m

    Jose Mourinho leaves @realmadrid. Official announcement to follow. #Mourinho
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "They'd go with definable irish, scottish ands welsh ones but deny there's an english one"

    Here's a clue, Alan - whatever you think the British identity is, that's the English identity. Plato hit the nail on the head earlier without even noticing.

    British identity is a multi-national one like the Scandinavian identity.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,983

    Blue_rog said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I must admit to finding it astonishing how *sure* people are on AGW. I don't know whether it is real or not. I know that there are other factors - such as global dimming, and sun activity cycles - which are enormously important to long-term climate trends. I also know that the world climate has gone through several very long-term cycles in the past (the mini Ice Age of the 17th Century, the Mediaeval Warm Period, etc.).

    From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.

    .

    @RCS

    Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.

    The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.

    The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.

    He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.

    Does that help?

    PTP:

    I'm not sure I agree. Whilst the basic greenhouse effect is elementary science in a test tube and in theory when in isolation, it is just a small part of an entire planetary system that we are nowhere near understanding. For instance, there are many competing theories about why ice ages occur; these vary from planetary orbits (Milankovitch cycles), solar output or volcanism. More likely, it will be some of these, along with many more that are hardly thought of at current.

    .
    It's all down to a butterfly flapping its wings!
    My favourite (ridiculous) one was access to sex. The uptick in warmth started around the 1960s, when evil sexual promiscuity started. Think of all that warmth generated by the bodies!

    And now, with easy access to pornography worldwide, we have to add the heat generated by hundreds of millions of teenagers fapping off.

    We should stop having sex immediately...
    I don't understand why churches and governments spend millions of pounds a year on abstinence-only instructions when a World of Warcraft account only costs £10 a month and has a much better record of ensuring virginity.
    TSE: Brilliant!
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited May 2013

    tim said:

    Matt Chorley ‏@MattChorley
    Google's Eric Schmidt allowed to leave No10 by the back door after Cameron refuses to challenge him over tax http://bit.ly/YUKSV3

    PR genius from Dave.

    LOL, so now Labour's party of fiscal responsibility ? You didn't do a lot about multinat tax dodging when in power, if anything you helped it along. let's face it if google were in Ed's office he'd be giving them everything they want.
    Labour introduced the LLP.

    Tax scam and money laundering vehicle par excellence.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited May 2013
    @tim - I have to say I'm very impressed by the sheer chutzpah of Labour's hypocrisy on international tax. For 13 years they had humoungous majorities, and they did absolutely nothing whatsoever to address the problem, missed out on an opportunity to address it as part of Lisbon, and now they have the gall to criticise Cameron for it. You have to hand it to them: for sheer, unprincipled, disgraceful, populist, bandwagon-riding hypocrisy they are the world leaders.

    However, I'm even more impressed by Cameron refusing to play this idiotic game with his guests. If we don't like how UK taxation works for international companies, we should change the law, not insult distinguished businessmen who have done absolutely nothing wrong and who certainly are not under any obligation to arrange their companies' affairs to benefit the UK.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited May 2013
    God bless Willie McCrea - ever ready to defend creationism against attack. He should get bonus points for claiming that science is on his side.
This discussion has been closed.