Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?
Box Office Gold!
“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?
Farage: 145.1k BBC News: 113.1k Sky News: 29.1k Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much.
What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?
Box Office Gold!
“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?
Farage: 145.1k BBC News: 113.1k Sky News: 29.1k Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much.
With gunpowder you could revolutionise mining?
See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).
I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?
Box Office Gold!
“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?
Farage: 145.1k BBC News: 113.1k Sky News: 29.1k Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”
What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?
Box Office Gold!
“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?
Farage: 145.1k BBC News: 113.1k Sky News: 29.1k Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”
Stephen Bush of the Staggers's daily email has been commenting on the contrast re Mrs T and Mr J - an extract:
"If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers [...]
Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.
But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today."
But its not true.
We don't need radical change in how we live. We need radical change in our technologies we use.
We need to switch from petrol cars to electric cars; we do not need to abandon driving. We need to switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity; we do not need to stop using electricity. We need to switch from jet oil to clean jet zero aircraft; we do not need to stop flying.
The hairshirt environmentalists are wrong. Science and technology are the solution, not economic vandalism. Something that both Thatcher and Johnson could both equally grasp.
He precedes that with
"All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed)."
What a ridiculous statement: it would be trivial for the UK (if it were only the UK) to replace all vehicles with electric ones by 2030. In a normal year, 2.3-2.4m cars are sold in the UK, compared to a global electric car market of around 3.5 million units (excluding PHEV) this year.
Not only that, but the number of EVs sold is increasing by 40+% per year. Now, sure, that might slow. But the share of the market that is EV/PHEV is going in exactly one direction. And by the early 2030s - irrespective of government action - the majority of cars sold are going to be EV/PHEV.
You are forgetting that two groups don't want this - big oil (and their fan club) and the watermelon Greens
Indeed, they have a massive aversion to the concept of private transport, whether it’s EV or IC powered.
A traffic jam made up of EVs is still a traffic jam.
The free-market fundamentalists who keep telling everyone to keep sticking their heads further in the sand are the worst criminals of all.
A traffic jam is not the end of the world. Though certainly building more and better roads can help ameliorate traffic issues.
But personal transport is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world. Zealots aren't going to convince people to give up on private transportation.
It isn't an invention of the modern world.
You really aren't going to be happy until every square inch of the world's surface is under concrete or tarmac, are you?
"Zealots" is interesting. Same mindset as we see with Covid, that nature is essentially benign, all problems are self-limiting, and everybody suggesting they might not be is a zealot, fanatic, zerocovidian or whatever. You don't seem to appreciate that we have turned all the controls up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the consequence of that is that everything is going to blow at some stage. Climate just got there first; if we reduced global temperatures by 3 degrees C tomorrow and kept them there we are still contending with resource depletion, soil depletion, pollution, overpopulation, a fresh water crisis and just running out of room.
Why I want every inch of the world's surface under tarmac? Do you have any clue what percentage of the world's surface is under tarmac as it stands? Its miniscule. Just as the proportion of the UK under tarmac as it stands is miniscule. We're talking fractions of a percentage point difference in outlook.
Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.
As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.
You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much.
With gunpowder you could revolutionise mining?
See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).
I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
If you could take Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian with you, there’s a decent description of how to home make gunpowder when the heroes (sic) are beleaguered on some God forsaken Mexican rock.
What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?
Box Office Gold!
“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?
Farage: 145.1k BBC News: 113.1k Sky News: 29.1k Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
Theres a great book called The Knowledge which is one of a number of popular science books to take on this sort of concept, albeit for the post apocalypse. The premise being we've learned a lot and could shortcut a lot of the ponderous development process, from mining, to agriculture to chemistry, since many cultures had the capability to be more effective but not the knowledge.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much.
With gunpowder you could revolutionise mining?
See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).
I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
I *think* I remember enough to sketch out the design of a crude steam engine. And, of course, if you go further there is always the windmill.
Stephen Bush of the Staggers's daily email has been commenting on the contrast re Mrs T and Mr J - an extract:
"If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers [...]
Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.
But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today."
But its not true.
We don't need radical change in how we live. We need radical change in our technologies we use.
We need to switch from petrol cars to electric cars; we do not need to abandon driving. We need to switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity; we do not need to stop using electricity. We need to switch from jet oil to clean jet zero aircraft; we do not need to stop flying.
The hairshirt environmentalists are wrong. Science and technology are the solution, not economic vandalism. Something that both Thatcher and Johnson could both equally grasp.
He precedes that with
"All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed)."
What a ridiculous statement: it would be trivial for the UK (if it were only the UK) to replace all vehicles with electric ones by 2030. In a normal year, 2.3-2.4m cars are sold in the UK, compared to a global electric car market of around 3.5 million units (excluding PHEV) this year.
Not only that, but the number of EVs sold is increasing by 40+% per year. Now, sure, that might slow. But the share of the market that is EV/PHEV is going in exactly one direction. And by the early 2030s - irrespective of government action - the majority of cars sold are going to be EV/PHEV.
You are forgetting that two groups don't want this - big oil (and their fan club) and the watermelon Greens
Indeed, they have a massive aversion to the concept of private transport, whether it’s EV or IC powered.
A traffic jam made up of EVs is still a traffic jam.
The free-market fundamentalists who keep telling everyone to keep sticking their heads further in the sand are the worst criminals of all.
A traffic jam is not the end of the world. Though certainly building more and better roads can help ameliorate traffic issues.
But personal transport is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world. Zealots aren't going to convince people to give up on private transportation.
It isn't an invention of the modern world.
You really aren't going to be happy until every square inch of the world's surface is under concrete or tarmac, are you?
"Zealots" is interesting. Same mindset as we see with Covid, that nature is essentially benign, all problems are self-limiting, and everybody suggesting they might not be is a zealot, fanatic, zerocovidian or whatever. You don't seem to appreciate that we have turned all the controls up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the consequence of that is that everything is going to blow at some stage. Climate just got there first; if we reduced global temperatures by 3 degrees C tomorrow and kept them there we are still contending with resource depletion, soil depletion, pollution, overpopulation, a fresh water crisis and just running out of room.
Why I want every inch of the world's surface under tarmac? Do you have any clue what percentage of the world's surface is under tarmac as it stands? Its miniscule. Just as the proportion of the UK under tarmac as it stands is miniscule. We're talking fractions of a percentage point difference in outlook.
Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.
As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.
You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.
"so-called overpopulation:" Have you ever left the first world? Seen how many people live, and how they live, in say Cairo or Calcutta or Johannesburg? You are going to have to sacrifice either your lovely aspiration that everybody should live in a lovely detached house with a lovely garden and drive about in their own lovely car, because that would be lovely, or the ludicrous claim that the world is not overpopulated.
And what could be sillier than a context-free "only x percent" argument? Take this pill, it's only 0.1% LSD; drink this drink, only 1% cyanide; eat this sandwich, only 2% dogshit?
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
That's a really interesting question. The best idea that I can come up with is using trigonometry to improve the accuracy of maps, although there's an element of needing accurate measurement devices with that too.
I've always thought that maps were surprisingly poor until relatively recently.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much.
With gunpowder you could revolutionise mining?
See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).
I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
If you could take Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian with you, there’s a decent description of how to home make gunpowder when the heroes (sic) are beleaguered on some God forsaken Mexican rock.
That is vaguely coming back to me: it involves a lot of piss, I think?
What a film that book would make (but I think it's unfilmable).
Stephen Bush of the Staggers's daily email has been commenting on the contrast re Mrs T and Mr J - an extract:
"If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers [...]
Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.
But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today."
But its not true.
We don't need radical change in how we live. We need radical change in our technologies we use.
We need to switch from petrol cars to electric cars; we do not need to abandon driving. We need to switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity; we do not need to stop using electricity. We need to switch from jet oil to clean jet zero aircraft; we do not need to stop flying.
The hairshirt environmentalists are wrong. Science and technology are the solution, not economic vandalism. Something that both Thatcher and Johnson could both equally grasp.
He precedes that with
"All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed)."
What a ridiculous statement: it would be trivial for the UK (if it were only the UK) to replace all vehicles with electric ones by 2030. In a normal year, 2.3-2.4m cars are sold in the UK, compared to a global electric car market of around 3.5 million units (excluding PHEV) this year.
Not only that, but the number of EVs sold is increasing by 40+% per year. Now, sure, that might slow. But the share of the market that is EV/PHEV is going in exactly one direction. And by the early 2030s - irrespective of government action - the majority of cars sold are going to be EV/PHEV.
You are forgetting that two groups don't want this - big oil (and their fan club) and the watermelon Greens
Indeed, they have a massive aversion to the concept of private transport, whether it’s EV or IC powered.
A traffic jam made up of EVs is still a traffic jam.
The free-market fundamentalists who keep telling everyone to keep sticking their heads further in the sand are the worst criminals of all.
A traffic jam is not the end of the world. Though certainly building more and better roads can help ameliorate traffic issues.
But personal transport is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world. Zealots aren't going to convince people to give up on private transportation.
It isn't an invention of the modern world.
You really aren't going to be happy until every square inch of the world's surface is under concrete or tarmac, are you?
"Zealots" is interesting. Same mindset as we see with Covid, that nature is essentially benign, all problems are self-limiting, and everybody suggesting they might not be is a zealot, fanatic, zerocovidian or whatever. You don't seem to appreciate that we have turned all the controls up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the consequence of that is that everything is going to blow at some stage. Climate just got there first; if we reduced global temperatures by 3 degrees C tomorrow and kept them there we are still contending with resource depletion, soil depletion, pollution, overpopulation, a fresh water crisis and just running out of room.
Why I want every inch of the world's surface under tarmac? Do you have any clue what percentage of the world's surface is under tarmac as it stands? Its miniscule. Just as the proportion of the UK under tarmac as it stands is miniscule. We're talking fractions of a percentage point difference in outlook.
Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.
As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.
You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.
"so-called overpopulation:" Have you ever left the first world? Seen how many people live, and how they live, in say Cairo or Calcutta or Johannesburg? You are going to have to sacrifice either your lovely aspiration that everybody should live in a lovely detached house with a lovely garden and drive about in their own lovely car, because that would be lovely, or the ludicrous claim that the world is not overpopulated.
And what could be sillier than a context-free "only x percent" argument? Take this pill, it's only 0.1% LSD; drink this drink, only 1% cyanide; eat this sandwich, only 2% dogshit?
Yes I have. The problem in those countries is a lack of development, its not overpopulation.
Hairshirt bollocks trying to turn our back on development is feeding the problem, it is not the solution.
South Africa's population density is about a tenth of England's.
Is having a tenth of our population per square kilometre leaving them ten times better off than we are? Or is it development that matters not the myth of overpopulation?
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
Theres a great book called The Knowledge which is one of a number of popular science books to take on this sort of concept, albeit for the post apocalypse. The premise being we've learned a lot and could shortcut a lot of the ponderous development process, from mining, to agriculture to chemistry, since many cultures had the capability to be more effective but not the knowledge.
When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.
I have a vague recollection of being at Old Trafford in the 80s and Michael Holding with a broken arm batting at no 10 and hitting a four one-armed and left-handed.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
Stephen Bush of the Staggers's daily email has been commenting on the contrast re Mrs T and Mr J - an extract:
"If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers [...]
Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.
But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today."
But its not true.
We don't need radical change in how we live. We need radical change in our technologies we use.
We need to switch from petrol cars to electric cars; we do not need to abandon driving. We need to switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity; we do not need to stop using electricity. We need to switch from jet oil to clean jet zero aircraft; we do not need to stop flying.
The hairshirt environmentalists are wrong. Science and technology are the solution, not economic vandalism. Something that both Thatcher and Johnson could both equally grasp.
He precedes that with
"All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed)."
What a ridiculous statement: it would be trivial for the UK (if it were only the UK) to replace all vehicles with electric ones by 2030. In a normal year, 2.3-2.4m cars are sold in the UK, compared to a global electric car market of around 3.5 million units (excluding PHEV) this year.
Not only that, but the number of EVs sold is increasing by 40+% per year. Now, sure, that might slow. But the share of the market that is EV/PHEV is going in exactly one direction. And by the early 2030s - irrespective of government action - the majority of cars sold are going to be EV/PHEV.
You are forgetting that two groups don't want this - big oil (and their fan club) and the watermelon Greens
Indeed, they have a massive aversion to the concept of private transport, whether it’s EV or IC powered.
A traffic jam made up of EVs is still a traffic jam.
The free-market fundamentalists who keep telling everyone to keep sticking their heads further in the sand are the worst criminals of all.
A traffic jam is not the end of the world. Though certainly building more and better roads can help ameliorate traffic issues.
But personal transport is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world. Zealots aren't going to convince people to give up on private transportation.
It isn't an invention of the modern world.
You really aren't going to be happy until every square inch of the world's surface is under concrete or tarmac, are you?
"Zealots" is interesting. Same mindset as we see with Covid, that nature is essentially benign, all problems are self-limiting, and everybody suggesting they might not be is a zealot, fanatic, zerocovidian or whatever. You don't seem to appreciate that we have turned all the controls up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the consequence of that is that everything is going to blow at some stage. Climate just got there first; if we reduced global temperatures by 3 degrees C tomorrow and kept them there we are still contending with resource depletion, soil depletion, pollution, overpopulation, a fresh water crisis and just running out of room.
Why I want every inch of the world's surface under tarmac? Do you have any clue what percentage of the world's surface is under tarmac as it stands? Its miniscule. Just as the proportion of the UK under tarmac as it stands is miniscule. We're talking fractions of a percentage point difference in outlook.
Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.
As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.
You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.
"so-called overpopulation:" Have you ever left the first world? Seen how many people live, and how they live, in say Cairo or Calcutta or Johannesburg? You are going to have to sacrifice either your lovely aspiration that everybody should live in a lovely detached house with a lovely garden and drive about in their own lovely car, because that would be lovely, or the ludicrous claim that the world is not overpopulated.
And what could be sillier than a context-free "only x percent" argument? Take this pill, it's only 0.1% LSD; drink this drink, only 1% cyanide; eat this sandwich, only 2% dogshit?
Yes I have. The problem in those countries is a lack of development, its not overpopulation.
Hairshirt bollocks trying to turn our back on development is feeding the problem, it is not the solution.
South Africa's population density is about a tenth of England's.
Is having a tenth of our population per square kilometre leaving them ten times better off than we are? Or is it development that matters not the myth of overpopulation?
Hahahahaha. No deserts there, thank goodness. And if there were, tarmac the fuckers. They'll be fine, because percentages.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
That's a really interesting question. The best idea that I can come up with is using trigonometry to improve the accuracy of maps, although there's an element of needing accurate measurement devices with that too.
I've always thought that maps were surprisingly poor until relatively recently.
If we could help the indigenous peoples of the Americas to kill the initial explorers, so that everyone sailing west from Europe simply “disappeared”, what would be the simplest way to do it? Teach them military tactics and organisation, or give them a key technology?
I could furnish them with pretty good world maps, but would that really help them much?
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
Incidentally for your information @IshmaelZ have you ever travelled? Have you ever been to London, let alone Johannesberg? The population density in Johannesberg is about half of that in Greater London.
Which city do you think you'd rather live in? Especially as a poorer resident of that city, which would be better? The more densely populated but better developed London, or the less developed but less densely populated Johannesberg?
That you think the issue with places like Johannesberg is one of overpopulation instead of underdevelopment really betrays your complete and utter ignorance on the subject matter.
Maybe you'd rather see Africans subject to imperialistic population controls to reduce their breeding, despite them being less densely populated than we are, rather than see some actual development as a solution?
Do Britons support or oppose new measures aimed at tackling illegal immigration, including life sentences for people traffickers & the criminalisation of those who facilitate the entry of asylum seekers into the UK?
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
That's a really interesting question. The best idea that I can come up with is using trigonometry to improve the accuracy of maps, although there's an element of needing accurate measurement devices with that too.
I've always thought that maps were surprisingly poor until relatively recently.
Its astonishing that some ancient ones are even close.
Do Britons support or oppose new measures aimed at tackling illegal immigration, including life sentences for people traffickers & the criminalisation of those who facilitate the entry of asylum seekers into the UK?
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
That's a really interesting question. The best idea that I can come up with is using trigonometry to improve the accuracy of maps, although there's an element of needing accurate measurement devices with that too.
I've always thought that maps were surprisingly poor until relatively recently.
If we could help the indigenous peoples of the Americas to kill the initial explorers, so that everyone sailing west from Europe simply “disappeared”, what would be the simplest way to do it? Teach them military tactics and organisation, or give them a key technology?
I could furnish them with pretty good world maps, but would that really help them much?
Maps are only useful the people who have the power to use them - i.e. possessing power to project over large (mapped) distances. These are also the people who would be able to furnish you with a life of relative luxury in exchange - the context of the question given.
In your scenario, sadly I think the main thing to teach the indigenous peoples would be cynicism. My recollection is that they were naively welcoming, which did not end well for them.
So, fire arrows and burn the ships as soon as sighted would be the way to go.
When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.
I have a vague recollection of being at Old Trafford in the 80s and Michael Holding with a broken arm batting at no 10 and hitting a four one-armed and left-handed.
Do Britons support or oppose new measures aimed at tackling illegal immigration, including life sentences for people traffickers & the criminalisation of those who facilitate the entry of asylum seekers into the UK?
It's a bit like Covid polling, the specifics of the question less vital than if it's a proxy for ' I am serious about x'
Though its exceptionally unusual to see cross-party support for such a policy when its named as a government policy.
That Patel is named you'd think would lead to more opposition than support from Labour and Lib Dem voters. But more strongly support the proposal than oppose it at all for both of the opposition parties voters.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
What about the condom?
I think I'd probably go with the Roulette table.
Now I'm imagining RCS explaining Credit Default Swaps to John Law....
Do Britons support or oppose new measures aimed at tackling illegal immigration, including life sentences for people traffickers & the criminalisation of those who facilitate the entry of asylum seekers into the UK?
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
What about the condom?
Pigskin? Cowhide? Double stitched?
Ah, see what you mean. No, fairly low take-up, I'd have thought. Needs a prior invention, I suppose, doesn't it. Back to the drawing board.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much.
With gunpowder you could revolutionise mining?
See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).
I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
If you could take Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian with you, there’s a decent description of how to home make gunpowder when the heroes (sic) are beleaguered on some God forsaken Mexican rock.
That is vaguely coming back to me: it involves a lot of piss, I think?
What a film that book would make (but I think it's unfilmable).
Piss indeed.
Probably filmable but would end up a deformed monster 3 years over schedule and 2 times over budget. Brando reprising Kurtz was always my prime candidate for the judge, so down a man already.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
I think I could probably make a pretty crappy printing press, but the fate of Gutenberg doesn't encourage me that I could make a fortune from it: it left him bankrupt. He was eventually given a stipend by the Archbishop for his work at 65, 3 years before he died, as well as 2000 litres of wine - I'm surprised he lasted 3 years
Public Health England's vaccine surveillance report has some updated figures on the impact of the country's jab rollout on the population:
Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 96.2% of the adult population now have antibodies to Covid-19 from either infection or vaccination
Great figure.
Though probably self-selection bias there. Those who are afraid of needles are probably more likely refusing the vaccine and less likely to be giving blood.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
I think I could probably make a pretty crappy printing press, but the fate of Gutenberg doesn't encourage me that I could make a fortune from it: it left him bankrupt. He was eventually given a stipend by the Archbishop for his work at 65, 3 years before he died, as well as 2000 litres of wine - I'm surprised he lasted 3 years
Korea had movable metal type before anyone. Didn't do them much good.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
You feel they were trying to mine an exhausted seam of humour?
I think they spoil tip by trying to be funny.
Just trying to slag off Johnson.
Bingo on the puns. (Don't know if southrons will spot both mine.)
More seriously: has anyone on PB or elsewhere noted that it's not just a matter of 1980s history. Mr Johnson has just given a rather brilliant impression of enunciating the equation:
climate change policy = brilliant excuse for the Tories to screw the working classes and their communities, what japes!
Which is the last thing we all need at the moment, especially with him fronting COP26 - in Scotland, too.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
Not at all...the media has been filled with stories that there is a lack of capacity due to void usually filled with immigrant labour. The public have been asked if they think the amount of immigration is enough or not and they quite clearly stated in this poll that they don't want the void to be filled with even higher levels of immigration.
If that means problems or higher prices due to higher wages to employ UK nationals that's a different question.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
Even if you are an employer, you're still having to guess.
If as an employer you're struggling to recruit is that because of low immigration? Or is it because you're a bad employer, offering poor wages, poor terms of employment and who treats staff badly so has poor staff retention?
If as an employer you're not struggling to recruit is that because immigration is appropriate or too high? Or is it because you're a good employer.
And maybe other sectors are different to your own.
Stephen Bush of the Staggers's daily email has been commenting on the contrast re Mrs T and Mr J - an extract:
"If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers [...]
Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.
But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today."
But its not true.
We don't need radical change in how we live. We need radical change in our technologies we use.
We need to switch from petrol cars to electric cars; we do not need to abandon driving. We need to switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity; we do not need to stop using electricity. We need to switch from jet oil to clean jet zero aircraft; we do not need to stop flying.
The hairshirt environmentalists are wrong. Science and technology are the solution, not economic vandalism. Something that both Thatcher and Johnson could both equally grasp.
He precedes that with
"All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed)."
What a ridiculous statement: it would be trivial for the UK (if it were only the UK) to replace all vehicles with electric ones by 2030. In a normal year, 2.3-2.4m cars are sold in the UK, compared to a global electric car market of around 3.5 million units (excluding PHEV) this year.
Not only that, but the number of EVs sold is increasing by 40+% per year. Now, sure, that might slow. But the share of the market that is EV/PHEV is going in exactly one direction. And by the early 2030s - irrespective of government action - the majority of cars sold are going to be EV/PHEV.
You are forgetting that two groups don't want this - big oil (and their fan club) and the watermelon Greens
Indeed, they have a massive aversion to the concept of private transport, whether it’s EV or IC powered.
A traffic jam made up of EVs is still a traffic jam.
The free-market fundamentalists who keep telling everyone to keep sticking their heads further in the sand are the worst criminals of all.
A traffic jam is not the end of the world. Though certainly building more and better roads can help ameliorate traffic issues.
But personal transport is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world. Zealots aren't going to convince people to give up on private transportation.
It isn't an invention of the modern world.
You really aren't going to be happy until every square inch of the world's surface is under concrete or tarmac, are you?
"Zealots" is interesting. Same mindset as we see with Covid, that nature is essentially benign, all problems are self-limiting, and everybody suggesting they might not be is a zealot, fanatic, zerocovidian or whatever. You don't seem to appreciate that we have turned all the controls up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the consequence of that is that everything is going to blow at some stage. Climate just got there first; if we reduced global temperatures by 3 degrees C tomorrow and kept them there we are still contending with resource depletion, soil depletion, pollution, overpopulation, a fresh water crisis and just running out of room.
Why I want every inch of the world's surface under tarmac? Do you have any clue what percentage of the world's surface is under tarmac as it stands? Its miniscule. Just as the proportion of the UK under tarmac as it stands is miniscule. We're talking fractions of a percentage point difference in outlook.
Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.
As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.
You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.
"so-called overpopulation:" Have you ever left the first world? Seen how many people live, and how they live, in say Cairo or Calcutta or Johannesburg? You are going to have to sacrifice either your lovely aspiration that everybody should live in a lovely detached house with a lovely garden and drive about in their own lovely car, because that would be lovely, or the ludicrous claim that the world is not overpopulated.
And what could be sillier than a context-free "only x percent" argument? Take this pill, it's only 0.1% LSD; drink this drink, only 1% cyanide; eat this sandwich, only 2% dogshit?
Yes I have. The problem in those countries is a lack of development, its not overpopulation.
Hairshirt bollocks trying to turn our back on development is feeding the problem, it is not the solution.
South Africa's population density is about a tenth of England's.
Is having a tenth of our population per square kilometre leaving them ten times better off than we are? Or is it development that matters not the myth of overpopulation?
Hahahahaha. No deserts there, thank goodness. And if there were, tarmac the fuckers. They'll be fine, because percentages.
There are some incredibly densely populated places that somehow manage to provide decent living space to lots of people.
For example, Monaco has a population of 38,000 and some very nice parks, beaches, restaurants and nightclubs in just one square mile.
At that population density, you could fit billions of people into England alone. (Not recommending it, but it could be done.)
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
England have always struggled to rattle through tailenders. Jimmy banana bending deliveries are too good for them....I remember facing Mustaq Ahmed and the first over he bowled to me I played and missed every ball as it spun too much for my limited ability.
This is where I imagine a Chris Jordon type player would be excellent with his fast direct yorkers
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
Except that would probably apply to the majority of questions, making asking them pointless.
Whether or not the public know enough to answer meaningfully the fact is they will have an opinion and that will influence their political representatives, who also may not really know enough.
So we need to know what people think is the answer, and if the public are just plain wrong you need leaders of strength to explain that.
Of course, instead they tend to just pretend the public supports a position even if they dont instead, as it's easier.
Its only things like the death penalty that politicians dont react to public opinion.
On Sunak, the only question the Tory leadership seems to care about these days is 'what does the red wall think?'
And the Labour leadership. The Red Wall is super powerful at the moment through the vagaries of our FPTP electoral politics. It is almost - but not really - like a mighty Roman Emperor, all of our fates resting upon whether its quivering thumb goes up or down.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
Comments
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
Keir just cannot get a break:
" Yesterday’s by-election saw the SNP win at stage five after receiving 42.5% of first-preference votes, up 1.7 points on the 2017 poll.
The Tories came second with 1085 votes, 24.4% of the overall total – with their support also up 2.4 points.
Meanwhile Labour received 969 votes, 21.8% of the overall share and a decrease of 9.1 points on the 2017 local council election.
The Scottish Greens were up 4 points with 7.6% of the vote, and the LibDems received 2.7% of the vote, no change on the previous election. "
I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
Jamaica nowhere without Bolt!
https://twitter.com/btharris93/status/1423635927524597767
What ghastly traitors these people are.
Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.
As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.
You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.
You can be pretty advanced pretty quickly.
Bring back the birch for this England team.
And what could be sillier than a context-free "only x percent" argument? Take this pill, it's only 0.1% LSD; drink this drink, only 1% cyanide; eat this sandwich, only 2% dogshit?
I've always thought that maps were surprisingly poor until relatively recently.
When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.
What a film that book would make (but I think it's unfilmable).
Hairshirt bollocks trying to turn our back on development is feeding the problem, it is not the solution.
South Africa's population density is about a tenth of England's.
Is having a tenth of our population per square kilometre leaving them ten times better off than we are? Or is it development that matters not the myth of overpopulation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%
The CricViz Analyst
@cricvizanalyst
·
5m
This is the fifth time this year that England have dropped 3+ catches in an innings. #ENGvIND
I could furnish them with pretty good world maps, but would that really help them much?
Which city do you think you'd rather live in? Especially as a poorer resident of that city, which would be better? The more densely populated but better developed London, or the less developed but less densely populated Johannesberg?
That you think the issue with places like Johannesberg is one of overpopulation instead of underdevelopment really betrays your complete and utter ignorance on the subject matter.
Maybe you'd rather see Africans subject to imperialistic population controls to reduce their breeding, despite them being less densely populated than we are, rather than see some actual development as a solution?
Site donation.
Support: 67%
Neither: 15%
Oppose: 10%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1423649127464833034?s=20
In your scenario, sadly I think the main thing to teach the indigenous peoples would be cynicism. My recollection is that they were naively welcoming, which did not end well for them.
So, fire arrows and burn the ships as soon as sighted would be the way to go.
That Patel is named you'd think would lead to more opposition than support from Labour and Lib Dem voters. But more strongly support the proposal than oppose it at all for both of the opposition parties voters.
Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 96.2% of the adult population now have antibodies to Covid-19 from either infection or vaccination
Probably filmable but would end up a deformed monster 3 years over schedule and 2 times over budget.
Brando reprising Kurtz was always my prime candidate for the judge, so down a man already.
Though probably self-selection bias there. Those who are afraid of needles are probably more likely refusing the vaccine and less likely to be giving blood.
PS Nine Down.
Didn't do them much good.
And as if by magic:
‘Boris Johnson offers role to Nicola Sturgeon in COP26’
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/boris-johnson-offers-role-to-nicola-sturgeon-in-cop26-3335166
If that means problems or higher prices due to higher wages to employ UK nationals that's a different question.
If as an employer you're struggling to recruit is that because of low immigration? Or is it because you're a bad employer, offering poor wages, poor terms of employment and who treats staff badly so has poor staff retention?
If as an employer you're not struggling to recruit is that because immigration is appropriate or too high? Or is it because you're a good employer.
And maybe other sectors are different to your own.
For example, Monaco has a population of 38,000 and some very nice parks, beaches, restaurants and nightclubs in just one square mile.
At that population density, you could fit billions of people into England alone. (Not recommending it, but it could be done.)
If England don't lose this by an innings I'll stop calling myself working class for the rest of 2021.
<26,000 Brilliant
<28,000 Good
<30,000 Fine
>30,000 Half baked theory is in full swing
Letting #7 get 50 is the bigger sin though.
This is where I imagine a Chris Jordon type player would be excellent with his fast direct yorkers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-thatcher-coal-mines-b1898125.html?amp
Whether or not the public know enough to answer meaningfully the fact is they will have an opinion and that will influence their political representatives, who also may not really know enough.
So we need to know what people think is the answer, and if the public are just plain wrong you need leaders of strength to explain that.
Of course, instead they tend to just pretend the public supports a position even if they dont instead, as it's easier.
Its only things like the death penalty that politicians dont react to public opinion.
How gutted must he be?!
You'd rather they not show the competitions our athletes are competing in?
"Global Day 11 highlights
There's been plenty going on away from Great Britain's ever-expanding medal haul too.
Joseph Cheptegei and Shaunae Miller-Uibo were dominant in claiming men's 5,000m and women's 400m gold medals.
And there was a world record for Aleksandra Miroslaw in everyone's new favourite sport, speed climbing. Gladiators, ready!"