Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Travelling to Essex from N. Wales last week we noticed lots of lorries heading Felixstowe (etc)-wards on the A14. Exacerbated by a fire on the M1, no doubt, but it did seem busy.
Have they finsished the upgrade works on the A14 yet? Last time I was in the UK, it was one big lorry park from Kettering to Cambridge.
Just about I think is the answer. My satnav was happy all they way; if there are very new roads it worries about going through fields but we just swept down from the A1 to the M11. Couple of new(ish) junctions at the Northern end which have improved matters immeasurably.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
The major underlying issue is that the world's economy has been built on global supply chains / JIT logistics and that its limitations have been tested globally by the pandemic and exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Longer-term, I think we are going to see quite significant on-shoring, particularly in the UK.
One other point. I always saw Brexit as a long-term thing, not short-term transformation, which is why I think the analogy of Irish independence vs the UK is quite a useful one.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Travelling to Essex from N. Wales last week we noticed lots of lorries heading Felixstowe (etc)-wards on the A14. Exacerbated by a fire on the M1, no doubt, but it did seem busy.
Have they finsished the upgrade works on the A14 yet? Last time I was in the UK, it was one big lorry park from Kettering to Cambridge.
Just about I think is the answer. My satnav was happy all they way; if there are very new roads it worries about going through fields but we just swept down from the A1 to the M11. Couple of new(ish) junctions at the Northern end which have improved matters immeasurably.
Good to hear. The massive improvement was the Catthorpe Interchange, where the M1, M6 and A14 all meet. That took years and cost hundreds of millions, but made a huge difference when it opened (around 2015, from memory).
If anything can be described as totemic of this government it's the BREXIT BUS.
Everyone knows Johnson's scant regard for truth both professionally and personally but because of his position of strength it hasn't mattered. When this inevitably turns and the health service starts to malfunction and Brexit chaos gets out of control it'll be time to make a comeback........
Maybe give Banksy a fleet of red busses and let him do his thing. It could turn into one of the most memorable negative advertising campaigns of all time
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I am trying to highlight the continuity between the thinking that drove the leave vote and implementation of it, and the thinking that drove the remain / rejoin movement in the aftermath of the referendum; and what we now have with the woke. I see it all as being part of the same thing; the rejection of ancient norms of public debate and the end of liberal democracy as we know it.
I am not claiming to read the minds of entire groups of people; but some level of generalisation is necessary to have a meaningful debate. If you want evidence of woke madness amongst the FBPE crowd, it is much in evidence on Twitter.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
Switching between R4 and 5 on the car journey to work, and hearing about bloody Adele's new song every few minutes, made me laugh when I saw this tweet..
@edcumming hearing a new adele song always like meeting your new cellmate
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
FPBE has, sadly, made me aware that my own "centrist" tribe that I thought were generally level headed, in favour of compromise and not given to emotional outbursts seems to contain plenty who are just as guilty of this hyper-partisan stuff as the crazies on the far left and right. It's been unedifying, particularly during the pandemic when many of them have doubled up as zero-covidians. Of course most of us in the Tory wet / Lib Dem / Blairite centre are nothing like that, but of course we're way less audible because we don't shout loudly on Twitter.
Cabotage changes may well be an example of taking back control from a societal perspective, but from a pure business and supply chain cost perspective it's a fairly simple equation: the fewer restrictions, the better. It's an example of one of those trade offs between business and social priorities which nobody seems to want to admit to. The idea something may be good in one respect and bad in another is apostasy.
I would have predicted with that many Lab voters the Cons would have won on preferences but apparently not. Interesting to see how the votes broke.
I have to go to Falkirk Sheriff Court on occasion, or at least I did before most appearances were on screen. It is, to put it kindly, a dump, deeply depressed like so much of central Scotland with a High Street of empty shops and full of drug addicts. I find the Tory performance there astonishing and Labour's even more so in a less good way.
The retiring Labour Councillor was the former Provost so I presume he had a personal vote.
Possibly, but that too is indicative of the problem. What is left of SLAB is a generation that were very much used to ruling the roost in Scotland and appointing their pals to sundry quangos and public bodies. Below that, in the current generation, there seems to be nothing, a waste land. As people like that Provost retire from the scene what is replacing them?
The Conservatives in Scotland should become a distinct party which takes the Tory whip at Westminster, called the Unionists. The door is there, its wide open and it has been for a while.
Then the Scottish public can be like the Northern Irish public. Bitterly divided on Nationalist vs Unionist lines with both sides shouting at each other - and utterly ignored by the rest of the country as the UK government uses its own MPs from its own Party to set the agenda.
Philip: * That is exactly what we have now but it benefits the SNP because the Unionist vote is divided and inefficient. * That is not what we see with the CDU/CSU in Germany. *The number of MPs from Scotland will mean that these MPs will never be as peripheral as Ulster MPs are. It takes a statistical freak for them to be relevant. It happened in 2017 and they blew it. * Oh yes, and most importantly of all it is the only way I can see the SNP ever losing power in Scotland.
* The most recent Labour Prime Minister was Scottish. * The Unionist vote will remain divided unless the "Unionist" party you wish for severs all ties with the Conservatives. Even then it may remain divided. Labour and Lib Dem voters aren't going to vote for a party that takes the Tory whip no matter what name you call it. So the CDU/CSU analogy doesn't work * Even once the Ulster MPs had that statistical freak result, they were still second-order with no Cabinet representation, no MPs in Government etc * The way to see the SNP losing power in Scotland is to defeat them. The Bloc Quebecois lost their grip on Quebec.
The issue you have is defeating them (or them defeating you) in a 2nd referendum like happened in Quebec is the likely way to see them lose power. And you're trying to find a way to avoid that risk. You can't realistically any more than MPs in Westminster avoiding the risk of a Lisbon referendum worked out. If the public wants it, they will eventually get what they want, and the longer you postpone the day of reckoning the less likely it is you'll win when you eventually have to face reality.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
On Tony Blair, and whether it is right that many in the Labour party now hate him, the simple fact is that, while he was a tactical genius when it came to winning elections, he was a strategic disaster for Labour when it came to Labour's longer-term future. Many of the problems with today's Labour stem from actions Blair took - devolution, unfettered immigration both from Eastern Europe and elsewhere, Iraq etc. If Brown hadn't opposed him, joining the Euro would have been another major one. Also, while not a major political vote loser, the pension raid (admittedly orchestrated by Brown) seriously damaged one of the pension set ups in the world (TBF, with Robert Maxwell playing a major part). He really was a short-termist, only interested in himself and what got him over the line short-term.
In fact - and sorry to go full Godwin - but the tactical genius / strategic failure mix that he most reminded me of was one Adolf Hitler. Crushing victories in the West, the Balkans and Norway / Finland, plus early Barbarossa but total f*ck ups in invading Russia, declaring war on the US when he didn't have to, Dunkirk etc and then eventual defeat...
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
I’m the 80s it was said that “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality”, but it’s the other way round now.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Surely the problem here is all these plonkers running around and exercising producing more than their 1kg? Lazy bastards like me are saving the planet!
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Quite the opposite, its easier to be left wing if you can deal with abstract theories and assumptions that wish away reality.
UKHSA say a private testing lab in Wolverhampton has been suspended - 43,000 people in South West of England given false negative PCR results between Sept 8 and Oct 12
Oh blimey. That could be a black swan
Unless its happening elsewhere it only means that there was about 1,300 extra people per day being infected in the area.
And on the bright side that's another 43k who aren't going to be getting infected during the winter.
The hospitalisation number are the key data.
It's worth bearing in mind that over the course of the pandemic literally millions of infections have not been picked up by testing. We know this because the ONS infection survey suggests that about 2-3 times as many people are getting covid than are being picked up by testing. If it's only one lab it really shouldn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
It's also a good example of why the ONS survey is worth doing. It's a great check for the testing programme itself. ZOE is useful for similar reasons too.
If anything can be described as totemic of this government it's the BREXIT BUS.
Everyone knows Johnson's scant regard for truth both professionally and personally but because of his position of strength it hasn't mattered. When this inevitably turns and the health service starts to malfunction and Brexit chaos gets out of control it'll be time to make a comeback........
Maybe give Banksy a fleet of red busses and let him do his thing. It could turn into one of the most memorable negative advertising campaigns of all time
Which is funny, as the Brexit Bus predates this government by three years.
Stand back, as a marketing professional, and admire the fact that this campaign both went totally viral at the time, and people are still talking about it more than five years later.
No honestly I’m genuinely confused now. So because we left the EU and now have a shortfall of 120K plus HGV drivers we give EU drivers the right to work here without reciprocal rights for UK drivers? How is that taking back control? #LostControl https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58921498
If it’s us controlling it, then it the essence of taking back control
Why would we want UK drivers to go abroad when we are short of them?
On Tony Blair, and whether it is right that many in the Labour party now hate him, the simple fact is that, while he was a tactical genius when it came to winning elections, he was a strategic disaster for Labour when it came to Labour's longer-term future. Many of the problems with today's Labour stem from actions Blair took - devolution, unfettered immigration both from Eastern Europe and elsewhere, Iraq etc. If Brown hadn't opposed him, joining the Euro would have been another major one. Also, while not a major political vote loser, the pension raid (admittedly orchestrated by Brown) seriously damaged one of the pension set ups in the world (TBF, with Robert Maxwell playing a major part). He really was a short-termist, only interested in himself and what got him over the line short-term.
In fact - and sorry to go full Godwin - but the tactical genius / strategic failure mix that he most reminded me of was one Adolf Hitler. Crushing victories in the West, the Balkans and Norway / Finland, plus early Barbarossa but total f*ck ups in invading Russia, declaring war on the US when he didn't have to, Dunkirk etc and then eventual defeat...
I thought the euro joining thing was rather weakly covered in this week's Blair/Brown doc episode.
Didn't really get into how they would have gone about it if Brown hadn't blocked it. Would Blair have won a referendum on joining €? Too much attention was given to the Red Lion and Charley Whelan. I don't even recall the five economic tests being mentioned.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
So as I said the main impact is age not education.
Otherwise Labour would be ahead amongst graduates over 50 too.
The Tories still win graduates over 50 however even if they lose graduates under 50.
The fact is amongst over 50s graduates are more likely to be higher earners and Tory voters too as only 10% of them are graduates. Amongst under 50s however with about 40% graduates fewer will be high earners so they will be more likely to support Labour than older graduates.
There may be some Brexit effect given both higher earners and graduates were more likely to vote Remain leading to the slightly lower Tory lead amongst higher earning over 50s graduates. However the Tories still lead amongst over 50s graduates and in every over 50s group while Labour lead in every under 50s group as the main determinant of voting intention is age not education
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Surely the problem here is all these plonkers running around and exercising producing more than their 1kg? Lazy bastards like me are saving the planet!
Keep up the good work, your tireless efforts in just sitting on the sofa are appreciated.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
I’m the 80s it was said that “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality”, but it’s the other way round now.
On Tony Blair, and whether it is right that many in the Labour party now hate him, the simple fact is that, while he was a tactical genius when it came to winning elections, he was a strategic disaster for Labour when it came to Labour's longer-term future. Many of the problems with today's Labour stem from actions Blair took - devolution, unfettered immigration both from Eastern Europe and elsewhere, Iraq etc. If Brown hadn't opposed him, joining the Euro would have been another major one. Also, while not a major political vote loser, the pension raid (admittedly orchestrated by Brown) seriously damaged one of the pension set ups in the world (TBF, with Robert Maxwell playing a major part). He really was a short-termist, only interested in himself and what got him over the line short-term.
In fact - and sorry to go full Godwin - but the tactical genius / strategic failure mix that he most reminded me of was one Adolf Hitler. Crushing victories in the West, the Balkans and Norway / Finland, plus early Barbarossa but total f*ck ups in invading Russia, declaring war on the US when he didn't have to, Dunkirk etc and then eventual defeat...
I thought the euro joining thing was rather weakly covered in this week's Blair/Brown doc episode.
Didn't really get into how they would have gone about it if Brown hadn't blocked it. Would Blair have won a referendum on joining €? Too much attention was given to the Red Lion and Charley Whelan. I don't even recall the five economic tests being mentioned.
The 'five economic tests' were a sham. They were utterly subjective and not objective. Economic dressing to butter up whatever decision Brown wanted to make.
If he wanted to say no he could say the tests were failed, if he wanted to say yes he could say they were passed.
It's a bit like finding contamination in a product, few individual items are likely to be contaminated, but you have to tell everyone not to use them or return them.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
I’m the 80s it was said that “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality”, but it’s the other way round now.
A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested
A Liberal turns out to be a Conservative when they get a chance of a ministerial chauffeur-driven car.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
The major underlying issue is that the world's economy has been built on global supply chains / JIT logistics and that its limitations have been tested globally by the pandemic and exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Longer-term, I think we are going to see quite significant on-shoring, particularly in the UK.
One other point. I always saw Brexit as a long-term thing, not short-term transformation, which is why I think the analogy of Irish independence vs the UK is quite a useful one.
Absolutely right. JIT supply chains only work when the whole global supply chain is functioning smoothly. If you are a car maker and you buy your glass windows from China or your interior trim from China, due to cheaper labour costs, and you are reliant on continuity of supply then the moment this happens you are stuffed. All the supplier has to do is declare Force Majeure and, in that case, won’t be liable to any consequential losses being passed back.
There will be significant onshoring to come in the future, you are quite right, as people evaluate the risk v reward. It has been seen as, if not risk free, minimal risk. Not any more. The reality is coming back to bite companies who pushed the Low Cost Country Sourcing mantra, indeed mandated it to their supply chain in many cases – hello Car Industry !!!.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
So as I said the main impact is age not education.
Otherwise Labour would be ahead amongst graduates over 50 too.
The Tories still win graduates over 50 however even if they lose graduates under 50.
The fact is amongst over 50s graduates are more likely to be higher earners and Tory voters too as only 10% of them are graduates. Amongst under 50s however with about 40% graduates fewer will be high earners so they will be more likely to support Labour than older graduates.
There may be some Brexit effect given both higher earners and graduates were more likely to vote Remain leading to the slightly lower Tory lead amongst higher earning over 50s graduates. However the Tories still lead amongst over 50s graduates and in every over 50s group while Labour lead in every under 50s group as the main determinant of voting intention is age not education
Thank you for conceding that there is a difference in voting intention correlated with education that is additional to the age effect.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
I’m the 80s it was said that “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality”, but it’s the other way round now.
A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested
A Liberal turns out to be a Conservative when they get a chance of a ministerial chauffeur-driven car.
And what are they when Facebook offers to write them a giant cheque?
If anything can be described as totemic of this government it's the BREXIT BUS.
Everyone knows Johnson's scant regard for truth both professionally and personally but because of his position of strength it hasn't mattered. When this inevitably turns and the health service starts to malfunction and Brexit chaos gets out of control it'll be time to make a comeback........
Maybe give Banksy a fleet of red busses and let him do his thing. It could turn into one of the most memorable negative advertising campaigns of all time
Which is funny, as the Brexit Bus predates this government by three years.
Stand back, as a marketing professional, and admire the fact that this campaign both went totally viral at the time, and people are still talking about it more than five years later.
a) You don't care if what you are stating is accurate or illogical? Are you really saying that? You still seem to be struggling with the difference between facts and opinions still
b) You quote ivory tower liberals stating people of the right are illogical. It may well be the case that some do that, but it isn't the case with me. With one other exception I have never done that here. I give you two examples as you didn't like the one I gave of @Philip_Thompson . I think it is fair to say that @Sean_F and @Sandpit are to the right of posters on this site generally yet I have never said any of their posts are illogical. On the contrary I admire both of them as being very rational and logical contributors, which I enjoy. You see it isn't because you are on the right. I have no issue with people on the right.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
Hopefully I haven't messed that up. I usually do but someone hear will point that out if I have. As I said this is very crude because none of these factors are linear so this would normally be a very complex calculation, but this will do to make the point.
I also haven't taken into account that the birth rate causes exponential growth so it is also wrong for that reason also, but will be understating the amount and be relatively accurate for short term forecasting.
Actually what I have done is embarrassingly crude, but hopefully makes the point.
The KEY point is the birth rate 'w' is directly proportional to the output. The reason the West out performs in CO2 output is the profligate factor 'x' is also directly proportional and has been a much bigger factor.
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
The point is x and fossil fuel output and methane output is by far the dominant factor in C02 production, hence the West and China and in terms of methane Brazil from cattle are by far the biggest polluters.
W is negligible in impact as Africa, which has the biggest global birthrate, also has lower emissions per head than any other continent of the world and lower emissions overall than Europe, Latin America and North America despite having a bigger population.
It is therefore x we need to reduce and we do that via technology as Philip T said and more renewables and also by eating less red meat so we need less forests to be destroyed for cattle farms
UKHSA say a private testing lab in Wolverhampton has been suspended - 43,000 people in South West of England given false negative PCR results between Sept 8 and Oct 12
Oh blimey. That could be a black swan
Unless its happening elsewhere it only means that there was about 1,300 extra people per day being infected in the area.
And on the bright side that's another 43k who aren't going to be getting infected during the winter.
The hospitalisation number are the key data.
It's worth bearing in mind that over the course of the pandemic literally millions of infections have not been picked up by testing. We know this because the ONS infection survey suggests that about 2-3 times as many people are getting covid than are being picked up by testing. If it's only one lab it really shouldn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
It's also a good example of why the ONS survey is worth doing. It's a great check for the testing programme itself. ZOE is useful for similar reasons too.
Though problems at the labs would also effect the ONS survey.....
It would be fairer to say that ONS and the larger testing program are for different purposes.
The main testing program is about telling specific people (and their contacts) if they are infected, The ONS survey is about estimating the level of infection ini the population generally.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
So as I said the main impact is age not education.
Otherwise Labour would be ahead amongst graduates over 50 too.
The Tories still win graduates over 50 however even if they lose graduates under 50.
The fact is amongst over 50s graduates are more likely to be higher earners and Tory voters too as only 10% of them are graduates. Amongst under 50s however with about 40% graduates fewer will be high earners so they will be more likely to support Labour than older graduates.
There may be some Brexit effect given both higher earners and graduates were more likely to vote Remain leading to the slightly lower Tory lead amongst higher earning over 50s graduates. However the Tories still lead amongst over 50s graduates and in every over 50s group while Labour lead in every under 50s group as the main determinant of voting intention is age not education
Thank you for conceding that there is an difference in voting intention correlated with education that is additional to the age effect.
Which is negligible given the Tories win graduates and non graduates over 50 and Labour win graduates and non graduates under 50.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
Definitely true, few that I know who stayed in research mostly don't care unless it affects their research grant. I think there is a huge amplifier effect on twitter of arseholes by other ones.
Falkirk Party 2021 votes 2021 share since 2017 SNP 1,691 39.2% +3.5% Conservative 1,676 38.9% +6.8% Labour 679 15.7% -11.4% Green 267 6.2% +1.1% Total votes 4,313
Labour 1,004 56.2% -0.4% +13.0% +2.1% -3.8% Conservative 423 23.7% -1.9% +15.6% +8.2% +16.0% Leigh West Independent ^^ 257 14.4% Liberal Democrat 103 5.8% +2.0%
Surrey Heath Frimley Green CON GAIN from LD Con 896 LD 877 Lab 76
Great results for the Blues - and look at Labour in Falkirk down from 1st to a poor 3rd. Even in Wigan their vote is down!
That Falkirk vote is truly remarkable. Clearly there was tactical voting going on by Unionists but it is astonishing that in a place like Falkirk that tactical voting has centred on the Tories instead of Labour. Labour are in an even worse place in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK and it is going to make their aspirations to be the largest party, let alone have a majority, extremely difficult.
I’m old enough (tho tbf I wouldn’t have to be very old) to remember when SLab could save the Union
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Travelling to Essex from N. Wales last week we noticed lots of lorries heading Felixstowe (etc)-wards on the A14. Exacerbated by a fire on the M1, no doubt, but it did seem busy.
Have they finsished the upgrade works on the A14 yet? Last time I was in the UK, it was one big lorry park from Kettering to Cambridge.
Just about I think is the answer. My satnav was happy all they way; if there are very new roads it worries about going through fields but we just swept down from the A1 to the M11. Couple of new(ish) junctions at the Northern end which have improved matters immeasurably.
Good to hear. The massive improvement was the Catthorpe Interchange, where the M1, M6 and A14 all meet. That took years and cost hundreds of millions, but made a huge difference when it opened (around 2015, from memory).
We were worried about Catthorpe, as along the M6 there were frequent signs warning of a lorry fire on the M1 Southbound, and expecting queues. However we suddenly realised we were past it and the road signs were indicating Kettering. And you're right; sorting that has made an enormous difference. If only the M11 was three lane, not two.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
As I said last night, humankind buggers up the planet in many more ways than just filling the atmosphere with CO2. More people, more buggering up. Zero people, zero buggering up.
Let's cover the entire planet in palm oil plantations to make carbon-neutral biofuels. That'll do the trick for net zero, but there won't be much else left alive.
FWIW we had 45,000 positive tests reported for the 14th, ZOE estimages 70,000 cases for the 15th. So every day tens of thousands of cases are being missed.
Nolan podcast - at the behest of Stonewall the Scottish government removed the word “mother” and “father” from its maternity policy documents. “Pregnant person” is the approved term.
On the first sweep they got most of them, but missed some, so Stonewall complained and the next year they got them all.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
I’m the 80s it was said that “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality”, but it’s the other way round now.
A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested
A Liberal turns out to be a Conservative when they get a chance of a ministerial chauffeur-driven car.
Then sells any values he might have left, in exchange for a seven figure salary lobbying for one of the scummiest complies on the planet.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
My experience too. The characteristics that push people into academia - an open and enquiring mind, pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, a desire to impart knowledge to the next generation, an empirical and sceptical bent, tolerance for relatively low pay - tend to be found at higher frequency among those of a liberal frame of mind. A similar kind of self selection bias explains why professions like the police and financial services attract more right wing people. The desire by some on the Right to demonise those with higher levels of education, basically because we can see through their bullshit, is one of the less pleasant developments of recent years.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
FPBE has, sadly, made me aware that my own "centrist" tribe that I thought were generally level headed, in favour of compromise and not given to emotional outbursts seems to contain plenty who are just as guilty of this hyper-partisan stuff as the crazies on the far left and right. It's been unedifying, particularly during the pandemic when many of them have doubled up as zero-covidians. Of course most of us in the Tory wet / Lib Dem / Blairite centre are nothing like that, but of course we're way less audible because we don't shout loudly on Twitter.
Cabotage changes may well be an example of taking back control from a societal perspective, but from a pure business and supply chain cost perspective it's a fairly simple equation: the fewer restrictions, the better. It's an example of one of those trade offs between business and social priorities which nobody seems to want to admit to. The idea something may be good in one respect and bad in another is apostasy.
The centre, which was broadly in charge from the mid 90's to the mid teens (Major to Cameron, say) didn't hold in the end. And to be fair, some of that was because it ignored the warning lights from those who wanted more vim and vigour in their politics, or who were taken for granted. There's no point denying that. It's on the heads of centrists in all parties, even if we still think that centrism is a better starting point for working out how to run a country.
As for cabotage, it highlights one of the problems I can see going forward. We have voted for the government elected in Britain to take back control. And it's not a stupid ideal, especially in a complicated world with a lot of dangers out there. But a lot of questions are now going to land on the government's desk. How many butchers should we allow in for how long? To what extent should European-based truck drivers be allowed to do jobs in the UK? Previously, they would have been answered by a combination of rules and the action of the market. Now they depend on ministerial decision, which will be less responsive and might not be any wiser. And a lot of the time, the control is an illusion anyway.
James Forsyth was good on the limits of Government Control in The Times this morning;
3 factors will play a huge role in determining what the next few months will be like: inflation, energy shortages and geopolitical tensions. Boris Johnson has little to no control over any of these forces. But he is loath to admit it.
I would have predicted with that many Lab voters the Cons would have won on preferences but apparently not. Interesting to see how the votes broke.
I have to go to Falkirk Sheriff Court on occasion, or at least I did before most appearances were on screen. It is, to put it kindly, a dump, deeply depressed like so much of central Scotland with a High Street of empty shops and full of drug addicts. I find the Tory performance there astonishing and Labour's even more so in a less good way.
The retiring Labour Councillor was the former Provost so I presume he had a personal vote.
Possibly, but that too is indicative of the problem. What is left of SLAB is a generation that were very much used to ruling the roost in Scotland and appointing their pals to sundry quangos and public bodies. Below that, in the current generation, there seems to be nothing, a waste land. As people like that Provost retire from the scene what is replacing them?
The Conservatives in Scotland should become a distinct party which takes the Tory whip at Westminster, called the Unionists. The door is there, its wide open and it has been for a while.
Then the Scottish public can be like the Northern Irish public. Bitterly divided on Nationalist vs Unionist lines with both sides shouting at each other - and utterly ignored by the rest of the country as the UK government uses its own MPs from its own Party to set the agenda.
Philip: * That is exactly what we have now but it benefits the SNP because the Unionist vote is divided and inefficient. * That is not what we see with the CDU/CSU in Germany. *The number of MPs from Scotland will mean that these MPs will never be as peripheral as Ulster MPs are. It takes a statistical freak for them to be relevant. It happened in 2017 and they blew it. * Oh yes, and most importantly of all it is the only way I can see the SNP ever losing power in Scotland.
* The most recent Labour Prime Minister was Scottish. * The Unionist vote will remain divided unless the "Unionist" party you wish for severs all ties with the Conservatives. Even then it may remain divided. Labour and Lib Dem voters aren't going to vote for a party that takes the Tory whip no matter what name you call it. So the CDU/CSU analogy doesn't work * Even once the Ulster MPs had that statistical freak result, they were still second-order with no Cabinet representation, no MPs in Government etc * The way to see the SNP losing power in Scotland is to defeat them. The Bloc Quebecois lost their grip on Quebec.
The issue you have is defeating them (or them defeating you) in a 2nd referendum like happened in Quebec is the likely way to see them lose power. And you're trying to find a way to avoid that risk. You can't realistically any more than MPs in Westminster avoiding the risk of a Lisbon referendum worked out. If the public wants it, they will eventually get what they want, and the longer you postpone the day of reckoning the less likely it is you'll win when you eventually have to face reality.
Quebec's second referendum only settled the issue as it was 15 years after the first ie a genuine generation, not just 7 years after the first as would be the case now.
Call an indyref2 now and give into the SNP before a generation has gone and the Nationalists will demand indyref3 within another 10 years even if No narrowly win indyref2
UKHSA say a private testing lab in Wolverhampton has been suspended - 43,000 people in South West of England given false negative PCR results between Sept 8 and Oct 12
Oh blimey. That could be a black swan
Unless its happening elsewhere it only means that there was about 1,300 extra people per day being infected in the area.
And on the bright side that's another 43k who aren't going to be getting infected during the winter.
The hospitalisation number are the key data.
It's worth bearing in mind that over the course of the pandemic literally millions of infections have not been picked up by testing. We know this because the ONS infection survey suggests that about 2-3 times as many people are getting covid than are being picked up by testing. If it's only one lab it really shouldn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
It's also a good example of why the ONS survey is worth doing. It's a great check for the testing programme itself. ZOE is useful for similar reasons too.
Though problems at the labs would also effect the ONS survey.....
It would be fairer to say that ONS and the larger testing program are for different purposes.
The main testing program is about telling specific people (and their contacts) if they are infected, The ONS survey is about estimating the level of infection ini the population generally.
Unless the ONS survey goes through one lab it should at least give a good overview of likely incidence rates, even if one lab has gone wonky. If there's a systemic problem across all labs then symptom surveys like ZOE should act as a check.
I presume somone somewhere has the job of looking at the correlation between the surveys and the testing programme to flag up potential problems.
I would have predicted with that many Lab voters the Cons would have won on preferences but apparently not. Interesting to see how the votes broke.
I have to go to Falkirk Sheriff Court on occasion, or at least I did before most appearances were on screen. It is, to put it kindly, a dump, deeply depressed like so much of central Scotland with a High Street of empty shops and full of drug addicts. I find the Tory performance there astonishing and Labour's even more so in a less good way.
The retiring Labour Councillor was the former Provost so I presume he had a personal vote.
Possibly, but that too is indicative of the problem. What is left of SLAB is a generation that were very much used to ruling the roost in Scotland and appointing their pals to sundry quangos and public bodies. Below that, in the current generation, there seems to be nothing, a waste land. As people like that Provost retire from the scene what is replacing them?
The Conservatives in Scotland should become a distinct party which takes the Tory whip at Westminster, called the Unionists. The door is there, its wide open and it has been for a while.
Then the Scottish public can be like the Northern Irish public. Bitterly divided on Nationalist vs Unionist lines with both sides shouting at each other - and utterly ignored by the rest of the country as the UK government uses its own MPs from its own Party to set the agenda.
Philip: * That is exactly what we have now but it benefits the SNP because the Unionist vote is divided and inefficient. * That is not what we see with the CDU/CSU in Germany. *The number of MPs from Scotland will mean that these MPs will never be as peripheral as Ulster MPs are. It takes a statistical freak for them to be relevant. It happened in 2017 and they blew it. * Oh yes, and most importantly of all it is the only way I can see the SNP ever losing power in Scotland.
* The most recent Labour Prime Minister was Scottish. * The Unionist vote will remain divided unless the "Unionist" party you wish for severs all ties with the Conservatives. Even then it may remain divided. Labour and Lib Dem voters aren't going to vote for a party that takes the Tory whip no matter what name you call it. So the CDU/CSU analogy doesn't work * Even once the Ulster MPs had that statistical freak result, they were still second-order with no Cabinet representation, no MPs in Government etc * The way to see the SNP losing power in Scotland is to defeat them. The Bloc Quebecois lost their grip on Quebec.
The issue you have is defeating them (or them defeating you) in a 2nd referendum like happened in Quebec is the likely way to see them lose power. And you're trying to find a way to avoid that risk. You can't realistically any more than MPs in Westminster avoiding the risk of a Lisbon referendum worked out. If the public wants it, they will eventually get what they want, and the longer you postpone the day of reckoning the less likely it is you'll win when you eventually have to face reality.
Not so. I have accepted the right to a second referendum following the election results. Tactically, I think that our prospects are better if it’s earlier.
I would just comment that the visa quota scheme should have been put in place a couple on months ago for HGV drivers and butchers and it is justifiable to say HMG was too slow in this respect
However, maybe they were making the point about cheap EU labour and Starmer's instant response to the HGV driver shortages was to say he would import 100,000 drivers and without realising it he opened the argument that labour wanted free movement and that is just not electorally a good place to be in
Those in the media and on here who attempt to trash the new visa quota scheme opening for drivers and butchers by saying the UK has capitulated and are now appealing to EU workers to fill the shortfall, either through ignorance or maleficence, do not understand that this is exactly how the new visa quota scheme should be working and was impossible within the EU. Also note how the media keep referring to bringing in EU workers when the visa quota scheme applies worldwide and requires a salary of £25,600 or more and fluent English
As we have seen this morning Germany are facing shortfalls in their supermarkets for Christmas and when you see container ships stranded all across the globe, (and still they are moored off Anglesey) then these shortages apply right across Europe and beyond and Brexit is a minor component of this story
I just do not see the UK re-joining the EU not least because month by month we draw further away and I believe among the population at large they just want to get on with their lives.
Indeed it appears this is the case in some EU countries resulting in the EU dramatic change of mind on NI and we must hope that this results in a mutual agreement with the EU and even heralds a new cooperative period
There will always those who lament the loss of our EU membership and I do share their dismay that they cannot enjoy the same freedoms in Europe, but maybe someday even that may be mitigated
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
As I said last night, humankind buggers up the planet in many more ways than just filling the atmosphere with CO2. More people, more buggering up. Zero people, zero buggering up.
Let's cover the entire planet in palm oil plantations to make carbon-neutral biofuels. That'll do the trick for net zero, but there won't be much else left alive.
The top 2 biggest polluters, China and the USA, which combined produce 43% of global CO2 emissions alone both have birthrates already below the global average of 2.4 (which is only just above replacement level now anyway) at 1.6 and 1.7 respectively.
Renewables overall are far better for the planet and sustainable with human life
On Tony Blair, and whether it is right that many in the Labour party now hate him, the simple fact is that, while he was a tactical genius when it came to winning elections, he was a strategic disaster for Labour when it came to Labour's longer-term future. Many of the problems with today's Labour stem from actions Blair took - devolution, unfettered immigration both from Eastern Europe and elsewhere, Iraq etc. If Brown hadn't opposed him, joining the Euro would have been another major one. Also, while not a major political vote loser, the pension raid (admittedly orchestrated by Brown) seriously damaged one of the pension set ups in the world (TBF, with Robert Maxwell playing a major part). He really was a short-termist, only interested in himself and what got him over the line short-term.
In fact - and sorry to go full Godwin - but the tactical genius / strategic failure mix that he most reminded me of was one Adolf Hitler. Crushing victories in the West, the Balkans and Norway / Finland, plus early Barbarossa but total f*ck ups in invading Russia, declaring war on the US when he didn't have to, Dunkirk etc and then eventual defeat...
I thought the euro joining thing was rather weakly covered in this week's Blair/Brown doc episode.
Didn't really get into how they would have gone about it if Brown hadn't blocked it. Would Blair have won a referendum on joining €? Too much attention was given to the Red Lion and Charley Whelan. I don't even recall the five economic tests being mentioned.
The 'five economic tests' were a sham. They were utterly subjective and not objective. Economic dressing to butter up whatever decision Brown wanted to make.
If he wanted to say no he could say the tests were failed, if he wanted to say yes he could say they were passed.
Indeed. But that should have been mentioned in the programme. As should Ed Balls role in cooking them up (in a taxi in NY in five mins iirc).
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
FPBE has, sadly, made me aware that my own "centrist" tribe that I thought were generally level headed, in favour of compromise and not given to emotional outbursts seems to contain plenty who are just as guilty of this hyper-partisan stuff as the crazies on the far left and right. It's been unedifying, particularly during the pandemic when many of them have doubled up as zero-covidians. Of course most of us in the Tory wet / Lib Dem / Blairite centre are nothing like that, but of course we're way less audible because we don't shout loudly on Twitter.
Cabotage changes may well be an example of taking back control from a societal perspective, but from a pure business and supply chain cost perspective it's a fairly simple equation: the fewer restrictions, the better. It's an example of one of those trade offs between business and social priorities which nobody seems to want to admit to. The idea something may be good in one respect and bad in another is apostasy.
Well said.
We live in an increasingly complicated and interconnected world - yet the politically active, especially with social media, want to see everything as black or white, good or evil.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
FPBE has, sadly, made me aware that my own "centrist" tribe that I thought were generally level headed, in favour of compromise and not given to emotional outbursts seems to contain plenty who are just as guilty of this hyper-partisan stuff as the crazies on the far left and right. It's been unedifying, particularly during the pandemic when many of them have doubled up as zero-covidians. Of course most of us in the Tory wet / Lib Dem / Blairite centre are nothing like that, but of course we're way less audible because we don't shout loudly on Twitter.
Cabotage changes may well be an example of taking back control from a societal perspective, but from a pure business and supply chain cost perspective it's a fairly simple equation: the fewer restrictions, the better. It's an example of one of those trade offs between business and social priorities which nobody seems to want to admit to. The idea something may be good in one respect and bad in another is apostasy.
I immediately expel FBPEs from my centrist tribe. Problem solved Has reduced my tribe, somewhat, but I don't think that matters as we're going to lose the next election anyway. Indeed, we might not have any parties representing us at all (Con: no; Lab: leadership, maybe, but not party; LD, too FBPE still, I expect, but we'll see; Green, no).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
The major underlying issue is that the world's economy has been built on global supply chains / JIT logistics and that its limitations have been tested globally by the pandemic and exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Longer-term, I think we are going to see quite significant on-shoring, particularly in the UK.
One other point. I always saw Brexit as a long-term thing, not short-term transformation, which is why I think the analogy of Irish independence vs the UK is quite a useful one.
Absolutely right. JIT supply chains only work when the whole global supply chain is functioning smoothly. If you are a car maker and you buy your glass windows from China or your interior trim from China, due to cheaper labour costs, and you are reliant on continuity of supply then the moment this happens you are stuffed. All the supplier has to do is declare Force Majeure and, in that case, won’t be liable to any consequential losses being passed back.
There will be significant onshoring to come in the future, you are quite right, as people evaluate the risk v reward. It has been seen as, if not risk free, minimal risk. Not any more. The reality is coming back to bite companies who pushed the Low Cost Country Sourcing mantra, indeed mandated it to their supply chain in many cases – hello Car Industry !!!.
One of the principle shortages for manufacturing has been in semiconductors. There is almost no chance of our onshoring that industry - rather more chance in Europe.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
FPBE has, sadly, made me aware that my own "centrist" tribe that I thought were generally level headed, in favour of compromise and not given to emotional outbursts seems to contain plenty who are just as guilty of this hyper-partisan stuff as the crazies on the far left and right. It's been unedifying, particularly during the pandemic when many of them have doubled up as zero-covidians. Of course most of us in the Tory wet / Lib Dem / Blairite centre are nothing like that, but of course we're way less audible because we don't shout loudly on Twitter.
Cabotage changes may well be an example of taking back control from a societal perspective, but from a pure business and supply chain cost perspective it's a fairly simple equation: the fewer restrictions, the better. It's an example of one of those trade offs between business and social priorities which nobody seems to want to admit to. The idea something may be good in one respect and bad in another is apostasy.
I immediately expel FBPEs from my centrist tribe. Problem solved Has reduced my tribe, somewhat, but I don't think that matters as we're going to lose the next election anyway. Indeed, we might not have any parties representing us at all (Con: no; Lab: leadership, maybe, but not party; LD, too FBPE still, I expect, but we'll see; Green, no).
The trouble is the retweets. Means my timeline come what may is populated by retweeted FPBEs and retweeted blue hearts, even when I'm on my supposedly non-political vineyard / wine industry login.
I would like to see a bit more capital capital L Liberal from the Lib Dems. We are not an authoritarian party so should stop trying to be one.
Nolan podcast - at the behest of Stonewall the Scottish government removed the word “mother” and “father” from its maternity policy documents. “Pregnant person” is the approved term.
On the first sweep they got most of them, but missed some, so Stonewall complained and the next year they got them all.
I fail to see what is wrong with using the words mother and father. It's not like we can't stretch the meanings of existing words.
I may have mentioned this before, but Germaine Greer's argument that there's no special role for fathers that is different to being a mother, and so fathers can simply be second mothers - love, care for, protect and guide their children - made a big impression on me.
I think I can therefore use context to tell the difference between use of mother, where it refers to something that doesn't include me, such as pregnancy, or breastfeeding, and other times when it can include me.
If anything can be described as totemic of this government it's the BREXIT BUS.
Everyone knows Johnson's scant regard for truth both professionally and personally but because of his position of strength it hasn't mattered. When this inevitably turns and the health service starts to malfunction and Brexit chaos gets out of control it'll be time to make a comeback........
Maybe give Banksy a fleet of red busses and let him do his thing. It could turn into one of the most memorable negative advertising campaigns of all time
Which is funny, as the Brexit Bus predates this government by three years.
Stand back, as a marketing professional, and admire the fact that this campaign both went totally viral at the time, and people are still talking about it more than five years later.
Do you work anywhere near 'media city' in Dubai?
(and yes. No one denies that DC is a very clever boy)
If anything can be described as totemic of this government it's the BREXIT BUS.
Everyone knows Johnson's scant regard for truth both professionally and personally but because of his position of strength it hasn't mattered. When this inevitably turns and the health service starts to malfunction and Brexit chaos gets out of control it'll be time to make a comeback........
Maybe give Banksy a fleet of red busses and let him do his thing. It could turn into one of the most memorable negative advertising campaigns of all time
Which is funny, as the Brexit Bus predates this government by three years.
Stand back, as a marketing professional, and admire the fact that this campaign both went totally viral at the time, and people are still talking about it more than five years later.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy. You might well be "relaxed" about it - I can assure you the last two years have been anything but relaxing for me.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
I bumped into a friend yesterday who told me he had been waiting several weeks for 'a bridge' and he'd just been to the dentist and he'd been told there was a further delay because it was 'coming from Europe'.
He was mightily pissed off and couldn't understand why it was 'coming from Europe'. I had no idea but it struck me how inextricably intertwined we are with our neighbours and how difficult it's going to be to separate ourselves.Those who voted leave did so for the most superficial of reasons and as the weeks and months pass even the most parochial of Leavers who have never taken a step out of Hartlepool are going to start noticing.
I get very nervous when bridges are mentioned in the context of Johnson's Government...even dental ones.
If anything can be described as totemic of this government it's the BREXIT BUS.
Everyone knows Johnson's scant regard for truth both professionally and personally but because of his position of strength it hasn't mattered. When this inevitably turns and the health service starts to malfunction and Brexit chaos gets out of control it'll be time to make a comeback........
Maybe give Banksy a fleet of red busses and let him do his thing. It could turn into one of the most memorable negative advertising campaigns of all time
Which is funny, as the Brexit Bus predates this government by three years.
Stand back, as a marketing professional, and admire the fact that this campaign both went totally viral at the time, and people are still talking about it more than five years later.
Do you work anywhere near 'media city' in Dubai?
(and yes. No one denies that DC is a very clever boy)
My wife works there as it happens, across the road from the BBC, CNN and local radio station buildings. Live about 15 mins away.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
The facts of life are Conservative, as Margaret Thatcher said.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
My experience too. The characteristics that push people into academia - an open and enquiring mind, pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, a desire to impart knowledge to the next generation, an empirical and sceptical bent, tolerance for relatively low pay - tend to be found at higher frequency among those of a liberal frame of mind. A similar kind of self selection bias explains why professions like the police and financial services attract more right wing people. The desire by some on the Right to demonise those with higher levels of education, basically because we can see through their bullshit, is one of the less pleasant developments of recent years.
Sometimes, I feel you're making progress - and then you post something utterly retarded like this.
You're the pb equivalent of Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates: @OnlyLivingBoy stars in 50 First Posts - tediously rehearsing the same arguments on the same subjects each and every day, before clearing the cache overnight and going right back to square one the next.
Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
Not a chance in hell.
It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.
Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.
England will never again be a part of the EU.
It can. All it takes is for a government consumed by woke thinking to declare the whole thing as racist and proscribe any opposition to rejoining the EU on the same grounds. And then they can just sign us back up again on whatever terms the EU demand. You think that this is mad but that is how a lot of woke remainers think.
Or perhaps more accurately, how you think 'a lot of woke remainers' think. You have at least given us some insight into how you think...
I had my company leaving drinks last night. I was sitting in the corner with an ex-colleague (alumni of the firm) who's a very dark skinned female Egyptian in her mid-40s who - totally unprompted - spent 3 minutes ranting to me about how Woke the firm had become and how it was totally OTT. We were both slightly worse for wear but she was fed up being categorised and its divisiveness.
An ever bigger smile crept across my face as I listened and I eventually had to politely interrupt her to say I agreed with her 100%. 110%. 500%.
Sometimes people surprise you.
Your company sounds like an awful place to work.
That's why I left.
And why I've always been fairly relaxed about "political correctness/woke gone mad" in the private sector*. Companies that persistently do stupid things and enact stupid policies will lose good people and, consequently, do less well (even beyond losing good people if they waste their employees time). The market will sort it out, most likely. Equally, companies with a sexist/racist/homophobic culture will like fail too. The ones that prosper will be those with a good atmosphere based on sensible policies, open debate and compromise.
*And, indeed, most of the public sector - people there will also leave jobs if it gets too painful, the exceptions perhaps being health care and teaching where there are fewer opportunities to change job without also changing career, the private sector roles being fewer in number.
I've got little time for this 'meh, it will sort itself out' argument, which is rather dismissive and lazy...
Similar considerations might apply to the disruptions caused by Brexit ?
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
[snip]
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
In general you are right but there is a factorial change that you need to take into account. We're supposed to be getting to "net zero" where everyone is net responsible for zero emissions.
On your formula you can drop the 1 it isn't doing anything or necessary so xywv/2z is the formula.
Now swap out x for 0 since we've moved to net zero.
The formula then becomes 0ywv/2z = 0
w (and y) cease to matter once they're multiplied by 0. They only matter if we're not at zero.
So the technology to get us to zero is what matters. Once you've done that, then the quantity of people is irrelevant.
The 1 was there to show the 1 kg had been taken into account when multiplied by the profligation factor. It was in response to @HYUFD 's statement yesterday hence why I showed all of that, but other than the whopper of assumptions I made re being linear and not taking into account exponential growth that applies to births there is also a whopper of an error. Hint see what happens if you put in a prediction for 1 year away!
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
Indeed but its only a factor if we've failed to reach net zero.
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
I don't disagree with that. Never did disagree with the issue (if you see the posts I agreed with HYUFD on that). It is the bloody logic that gets me.
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
I agree with you on the issues with a certain other poster's logic (in general).
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
Nolan podcast - at the behest of Stonewall the Scottish government removed the word “mother” and “father” from its maternity policy documents. “Pregnant person” is the approved term.
On the first sweep they got most of them, but missed some, so Stonewall complained and the next year they got them all.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
There are very few occupations in which you won't find at least 25% holding more or less right wing views in private, but many of them will prefer a quiet life.
FWIW we had 45,000 positive tests reported for the 14th, ZOE estimages 70,000 cases for the 15th. So every day tens of thousands of cases are being missed.
Possibly, but remember ZOE is just an estimate, as is the ONS weekly survey. I don't doubt we are not finding all cases, and we never will, but I do believe we are finding more at this time than at any other point in the pandemic. We are also doing more testing than more other nations.
I had a wobble this morning. Other western european nations do have much lower case rates (by positive tests) and lower deaths right now. I suspect they have tighter controls. And that is the trade right there. I'm enjoying the fact that we are 'back to normal' for the most part. But covid is still claiming 150 people a day here.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
The facts of life are Conservative, as Margaret Thatcher said.
Were, to some extent. But "Conservative" has changed in the intervening years, hasn't it? In the US I'm not sure creationism, climate denial or anti-vaxx are particularly consistent with the facts of life. In Britain I remain to be convinced that our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired either.
Nolan podcast - at the behest of Stonewall the Scottish government removed the word “mother” and “father” from its maternity policy documents. “Pregnant person” is the approved term.
On the first sweep they got most of them, but missed some, so Stonewall complained and the next year they got them all.
I fail to see what is wrong with using the words mother and father. It's not like we can't stretch the meanings of existing words.
I may have mentioned this before, but Germaine Greer's argument that there's no special role for fathers that is different to being a mother, and so fathers can simply be second mothers - love, care for, protect and guide their children - made a big impression on me.
I think I can therefore use context to tell the difference between use of mother, where it refers to something that doesn't include me, such as pregnancy, or breastfeeding, and other times when it can include me.
I think there are also issues about inter-family, and other 'social' relationships. Varies with the overall society, of course.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias, as Stephen Colbert said.
The facts of life are Conservative, as Margaret Thatcher said.
Were, to some extent. But "Conservative" has changed in the intervening years, hasn't it? In the US I'm not sure creationism, climate denial or anti-vaxx are particularly consistent with the facts of life. In Britain I remain to be convinced that our recent journey of national discovery is hugely facts-of-life inspired either.
This is, essentially, the point I was alluding to in my original post.
American ‘redistricting’ is hillarious to watch from afar. They really do need a Boundaries Commission in each State, and a few do, but why would the party in power vote for that when Gerrymandering is the other option?
Nolan podcast - at the behest of Stonewall the Scottish government removed the word “mother” and “father” from its maternity policy documents. “Pregnant person” is the approved term.
On the first sweep they got most of them, but missed some, so Stonewall complained and the next year they got them all.
Stalin was remarkably well-read too, he managed about 15,000.
That is remarkable given the length of Russian books. 1,200 pages of War and Peace; 800-odd of Anna Karenina. It's surprising he made it to double figures.
That is some going. My aim each year is to read at least 100 books. It is my one ongoing resolution each January and most of the time I manage it. My record is 122 books in one year.
Our English master at boarding school got us to keep a list of all the books we read so I started my list at age 14 (first entry on the list in September 1981 is Concrete Island by J.G. Ballard). I kept the list going until my late 30s until there were 1,910 books on it. The last entry in it is Generation "П" by Viktor Pelevin in Xmas 2005. I've probably done another 1,000 since then but the list is dead.
The man suspected of killing five people with a bow and arrows and other weapons in Norway has been transferred to the public health service, a state prosecutor has said, amid continuing concerns about his mental health.
I guess this is because of his skin colour...right?
American ‘redistricting’ is hillarious to watch from afar. They really do need a Boundaries Commission in each State, and a few do, but why would the party in power vote for that when Gerrymandering is the other option?
It would be funny if the people responsible didn't go about lecturing other people on 'democracy'.
It's good to see the classics being updated but I think they should put a bit more effort into it. Simply crossing out "homosexual" and replacing it with "trans" in all the scare stories is a bit low effort.
Secretive powerful X Lobby X activists are infiltrating our schools to make our children X. etc.
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Such is the US-style partisanship of everything Brexit these days (and everything Covid, which in some ways has become even more partisan) that it seems some people are incapable of accepting that many of the supply chain problems we have are global, and other people are incapable of accepting - or perhaps admitting - that Brexit could be making things worse.
It may be pure coincidence but so many of the things that are now transpiring are soft-edged versions of exactly what I and my colleagues spent 4 years advising clients to prepare for in the event of no-deal. Including the terminology - I can dig out various bits of advice talking about cabotage, sanitary and phytosanitary checks, shortages of water treatment chemicals, costs per pallet for customs documentation, micro traders ceasing to sell into the UK, and so on. We also advised on potential long term upsides including greater automation, supply chain innovation, retraining. Things the government are now belatedly talking about.
One thing we got very wrong was the impact on circulation and the notorious Kent traffic jam that never happened. The lorries didn't clog up the M20, they just stayed at home (as did half the working population because of Covid).
Andrew Pierce made the point on GMB it was a global crisis which is exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Denied by his Labour supporting Chum who put it all down to Brexit. I think that is right. Brexit has not helped but the problems are largely global.
I think what does not help is FBPE head cases blame Brexit for everything and basically lie and overexaggerate about some of the issues we have such as so-called shortages in supermarkets. Of course die hard brexiteers are just as bad too.
As for the cabotage changes surely this is all part of taking back control ? Would we have the flexibility to do this had we been in the EU. I do not know.
The major underlying issue is that the world's economy has been built on global supply chains / JIT logistics and that its limitations have been tested globally by the pandemic and exacerbated in the UK by Brexit. Longer-term, I think we are going to see quite significant on-shoring, particularly in the UK.
One other point. I always saw Brexit as a long-term thing, not short-term transformation, which is why I think the analogy of Irish independence vs the UK is quite a useful one.
Absolutely right. JIT supply chains only work when the whole global supply chain is functioning smoothly. If you are a car maker and you buy your glass windows from China or your interior trim from China, due to cheaper labour costs, and you are reliant on continuity of supply then the moment this happens you are stuffed. All the supplier has to do is declare Force Majeure and, in that case, won’t be liable to any consequential losses being passed back.
There will be significant onshoring to come in the future, you are quite right, as people evaluate the risk v reward. It has been seen as, if not risk free, minimal risk. Not any more. The reality is coming back to bite companies who pushed the Low Cost Country Sourcing mantra, indeed mandated it to their supply chain in many cases – hello Car Industry !!!.
One of the principle shortages for manufacturing has been in semiconductors. There is almost no chance of our onshoring that industry - rather more chance in Europe.
Tbh, I'm not sure Europe will get much of a bite either. Projects that are currently proceeding are in Korea, Japan and the US. No country in Europe will get the chequebook out and it would need a complete rewrite of state aid rules. Intel are talking big about a new EU foundry but they're also asking for €8bn. Who is going to give them that subsidy and how will they do it without breaking state aid rules? No one seems to know the answer to the questions and that means countries who are happy to pay the money are getting foundries. Aiui the new Japanese government is readying a $100bn industrial regeneration fund and the US is doing something similar, no country in the EU (or the UK) can compete with that.
We all want to decouple from China and Chinese supply chains but we're relying in private companies to do it in Europe. That's just never going to happen because companies will always pick the cheaper option and the cheaper option will generally be a Chinese import. In the end we just have to hope we can hang onto the coat tails of Japan and US to benefit from their state aid programmes. I don't see the UK or EU having anything close to what those two are doing.
a) You don't care if what you are stating is accurate or illogical? Are you really saying that? You still seem to be struggling with the difference between facts and opinions still
b) You quote ivory tower liberals stating people of the right are illogical. It may well be the case that some do that, but it isn't the case with me. With one other exception I have never done that here. I give you two examples as you didn't like the one I gave of @Philip_Thompson . I think it is fair to say that @Sean_F and @Sandpit are to the right of posters on this site generally yet I have never said any of their posts are illogical. On the contrary I admire both of them as being very rational and logical contributors, which I enjoy. You see it isn't because you are on the right. I have no issue with people on the right.
c) Try this out. It is very very crude as stuff isn't linear which I am assuming it is but it will do for the explanation as otherwise it would be very complex
According to the internet the output from humans of CO2 through just breathing is about 1kg per day
Let us say the average profligate factor for a country is 'x' That is how many more times per head CO2 is produced in that economy
Let us say the population is 'y'
Let us say the birth rate is 'w'
Let us say a generation is replaced every 'z' years.
Let us say that the year you want to predict the CO2 output for is 'v' years away
The CO2 output for that country is then 1xywv/2z
Hopefully I haven't messed that up. I usually do but someone hear will point that out if I have. As I said this is very crude because none of these factors are linear so this would normally be a very complex calculation, but this will do to make the point.
I also haven't taken into account that the birth rate causes exponential growth so it is also wrong for that reason also, but will be understating the amount and be relatively accurate for short term forecasting.
Actually what I have done is embarrassingly crude, but hopefully makes the point.
The KEY point is the birth rate 'w' is directly proportional to the output. The reason the West out performs in CO2 output is the profligate factor 'x' is also directly proportional and has been a much bigger factor.
Now waiting for this absolute drivel of maths to be massacred as I know there are lot more able people on PB than me. Sorry!
The point is x and fossil fuel output and methane output is by far the dominant factor in C02 production, hence the West and China and in terms of methane Brazil from cattle are by far the biggest polluters.
W is negligible in impact as Africa, which has the biggest global birthrate, also has lower emissions per head than any other continent of the world and lower emissions overall than Europe, Latin America and North America despite having a bigger population.
It is therefore x we need to reduce and we do that via technology as Philip T said and more renewables and also by eating less red meat so we need less forests to be destroyed for cattle farms
So we are now getting sensible. I agree with what you have said 100%. I never disagreed with any of that. I am 100% in agreement.
BUT, and this is the key point, you specifically said population was not a factor. And you didn't just give it as an opinion, which would be fine. If you had I would politely disagree and maybe argue the point as we all have different opinions and I would be in agreement with your solution you proposed which I do agree with.
But no you didn't do that. What you actually did was make a statement deducing it from another unrelated fact. The deduction was unfounded. You moved it from opinion to fact and it just wasn't a fact. It was an opinion.
It was that, that was challenged by others so quickly (and then by me). I doubt any who challenged you disagreed with your solution.
You do get don't you that on the last 4 arguments we have had I have only disagreed with the point you are making once, but it is hard to support you when you come out with deductions that don't stand up to scrutiny, even if I agree with the thrust of your argument.
Britons over 50 with university degrees back the Tories by 41% to 29% for Labour while those aged 18 to 49 who left school after GCSE back Labour by 39% to 29%.
Confirms the so called education gap is just an age gap as about 40% of under 50s graduated from university compared to about 10% of over 50s
No it doesn't. There's an age gap and an education gap. In both age groups Labour does better in the high education group and the Tories better in the low education group.
The Tories lead amongst graduates and non graduates over 50, Labour lead amongst graduates and non graduates under 50.
As I said the divide is really an age one not an educational one
No you are wrong. There are divides due to age and due to education.
Let's look at over-50s. The figures are:
High educated Con 41-29 Lab Low educated Con 52-22 Lab
So we can clearly see that within this age group higher education is correlated with higher support for Labour and lower support for the Conservatives compared to the low education group.
If we look at the under-50s the same educational splits give these figures:
High educated Con 22-43 Lab Low educated Con 29-39 Lab
We see a similar difference between the two groups. Labour support is higher in the high education group when the age is the same.
If we look at the size of the difference then we can see that the Tory lead is +18 in low education compared to high education in over-50s and +11 for under-50s.
If we look at the difference by age then we see the Tory lead is +40 in over-50s compared to under-50s for low education voters and +33 for high education voters.
So we can see that the effect of age is about two and a half times as strong as the effect of education. Age is more important, but there is still a strong effect due to education.
I think that's right. Hence, partly, the well-known left-wing bias of academia.
The left-wing bias of academia is much-exaggerated, but it's a useful excuse for those on the right who observe the tendency of better educated people to favour more liberal or left wing parties and don't want to engage in any soul-searching.
The left wing bias in academia has got stronger and stronger but I think it’s because, at some stage, the right wing gave up on facts.
Right wing academics do still exist, quite vocally, but they are definitely a minority. As usual though I think social media and noise exaggerate the size of the full-on left wing contingent in academia. I know a few people working in research, and most are soft centre-left or liberal types. But they just get on with their work and don't make a noise. The ones who shout loudest are those with more of a hard-left axe to grind. So the decibel meter distorts the reality as usual.
My experience too. The characteristics that push people into academia - an open and enquiring mind, pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, a desire to impart knowledge to the next generation, an empirical and sceptical bent, tolerance for relatively low pay - tend to be found at higher frequency among those of a liberal frame of mind. A similar kind of self selection bias explains why professions like the police and financial services attract more right wing people. The desire by some on the Right to demonise those with higher levels of education, basically because we can see through their bullshit, is one of the less pleasant developments of recent years.
Sometimes, I feel you're making progress - and then you post something utterly retarded like this.
You're the pb equivalent of Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates: @OnlyLivingBoy stars in 50 First Posts - tediously rehearsing the same arguments on the same subjects each and every day, before clearing the cache overnight and going right back to square one the next.
I'm honoured to be compared to Drew Barrymore. Don't use words like "retarded" though, please. Not only does it cross the line in terms of personal abuse (a recurring problem for you, sadly) but it is also an unacceptable word to use.
Comments
Your comment was exactly the same mentality as Trumps comments re too much testing
Have a lovely day Blanche
One other point. I always saw Brexit as a long-term thing, not short-term transformation, which is why I think the analogy of Irish independence vs the UK is quite a useful one.
Everyone knows Johnson's scant regard for truth both professionally and personally but because of his position of strength it hasn't mattered. When this inevitably turns and the health service starts to malfunction and Brexit chaos gets out of control it'll be time to make a comeback........
Maybe give Banksy a fleet of red busses and let him do his thing. It could turn into one of the most memorable negative advertising campaigns of all time
I am not claiming to read the minds of entire groups of people; but some level of generalisation is necessary to have a meaningful debate. If you want evidence of woke madness amongst the FBPE crowd, it is much in evidence on Twitter.
Cabotage changes may well be an example of taking back control from a societal perspective, but from a pure business and supply chain cost perspective it's a fairly simple equation: the fewer restrictions, the better. It's an example of one of those trade offs between business and social priorities which nobody seems to want to admit to. The idea something may be good in one respect and bad in another is apostasy.
* The Unionist vote will remain divided unless the "Unionist" party you wish for severs all ties with the Conservatives. Even then it may remain divided. Labour and Lib Dem voters aren't going to vote for a party that takes the Tory whip no matter what name you call it. So the CDU/CSU analogy doesn't work
* Even once the Ulster MPs had that statistical freak result, they were still second-order with no Cabinet representation, no MPs in Government etc
* The way to see the SNP losing power in Scotland is to defeat them. The Bloc Quebecois lost their grip on Quebec.
The issue you have is defeating them (or them defeating you) in a 2nd referendum like happened in Quebec is the likely way to see them lose power. And you're trying to find a way to avoid that risk. You can't realistically any more than MPs in Westminster avoiding the risk of a Lisbon referendum worked out. If the public wants it, they will eventually get what they want, and the longer you postpone the day of reckoning the less likely it is you'll win when you eventually have to face reality.
I don't want to embarrass myself any further.
Just trying to prove to HYUFD that population is a factor in CO2 production, which to be honest shouldn't need stating after all zero people produce none, some people produce some, lots of people produce more. For most people that is a given, but this is HYUFD we are dealing with.
In fact - and sorry to go full Godwin - but the tactical genius / strategic failure mix that he most reminded me of was one Adolf Hitler. Crushing victories in the West, the Balkans and Norway / Finland, plus early Barbarossa but total f*ck ups in invading Russia, declaring war on the US when he didn't have to, Dunkirk etc and then eventual defeat...
The issue is we're supposed to be using our technology to get to net zero. If we can get to net zero then it doesn't matter what our population is. 1 million, ten million, 7 billion or 50 billion - whatever figure you times by zero the answer is always zero.
I hate to say this but HYUFD is right on this one. For the wrong logic, but he's right. Technology is the key. If our technology makes us reach net zero then having double or half the population times by zero won't make any difference at all.
It's also a good example of why the ONS survey is worth doing. It's a great check for the testing programme itself. ZOE is useful for similar reasons too.
Stand back, as a marketing professional, and admire the fact that this campaign both went totally viral at the time, and people are still talking about it more than five years later.
Why would we want UK drivers to go abroad when we are short of them?
Didn't really get into how they would have gone about it if Brown hadn't blocked it. Would Blair have won a referendum on joining €? Too much attention was given to the Red Lion and Charley Whelan. I don't even recall the five economic tests being mentioned.
Otherwise Labour would be ahead amongst graduates over 50 too.
The Tories still win graduates over 50 however even if they lose graduates under 50.
The fact is amongst over 50s graduates are more likely to be higher earners and Tory voters too as only 10% of them are graduates. Amongst under 50s however with about 40% graduates fewer will be high earners so they will be more likely to support Labour than older graduates.
There may be some Brexit effect given both higher earners and graduates were more likely to vote Remain leading to the slightly lower Tory lead amongst higher earning over 50s graduates. However the Tories still lead amongst over 50s graduates and in every over 50s group while Labour lead in every under 50s group as the main determinant of voting intention is age not education
If he wanted to say no he could say the tests were failed, if he wanted to say yes he could say they were passed.
@MichaelLCrick
Gladstone managed to read 23,000 books in his lifetime. They’re all in his library, and they know he read them because his notes are written in the margins. Serious books, often in Latin or Greek, and on theology.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1448774975855472641
There will be significant onshoring to come in the future, you are quite right, as people evaluate the risk v reward. It has been seen as, if not risk free, minimal risk. Not any more. The reality is coming back to bite companies who pushed the Low Cost Country Sourcing mantra, indeed mandated it to their supply chain in many cases – hello Car Industry !!!.
W is negligible in impact as Africa, which has the biggest global birthrate, also has lower emissions per head than any other continent of the world and lower emissions overall than Europe, Latin America and North America despite having a bigger population.
It is therefore x we need to reduce and we do that via technology as Philip T said and more renewables and also by eating less red meat so we need less forests to be destroyed for cattle farms
It would be fairer to say that ONS and the larger testing program are for different purposes.
The main testing program is about telling specific people (and their contacts) if they are infected,
The ONS survey is about estimating the level of infection ini the population generally.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-anas-sarwar-can-save-the-union
And you're right; sorting that has made an enormous difference. If only the M11 was three lane, not two.
Let's cover the entire planet in palm oil plantations to make carbon-neutral biofuels. That'll do the trick for net zero, but there won't be much else left alive.
On the first sweep they got most of them, but missed some, so Stonewall complained and the next year they got them all.
The desire by some on the Right to demonise those with higher levels of education, basically because we can see through their bullshit, is one of the less pleasant developments of recent years.
As for cabotage, it highlights one of the problems I can see going forward. We have voted for the government elected in Britain to take back control. And it's not a stupid ideal, especially in a complicated world with a lot of dangers out there. But a lot of questions are now going to land on the government's desk. How many butchers should we allow in for how long? To what extent should European-based truck drivers be allowed to do jobs in the UK? Previously, they would have been answered by a combination of rules and the action of the market. Now they depend on ministerial decision, which will be less responsive and might not be any wiser. And a lot of the time, the control is an illusion anyway.
James Forsyth was good on the limits of Government Control in The Times this morning;
3 factors will play a huge role in determining what the next few months will be like: inflation, energy shortages and geopolitical tensions. Boris Johnson has little to no control over any of these forces. But he is loath to admit it.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1448928140068368389?s=20
Call an indyref2 now and give into the SNP before a generation has gone and the Nationalists will demand indyref3 within another 10 years even if No narrowly win indyref2
Nice to see a swing to Indy though.
I presume somone somewhere has the job of looking at the correlation between the surveys and the testing programme to flag up potential problems.
However, maybe they were making the point about cheap EU labour and Starmer's instant response to the HGV driver shortages was to say he would import 100,000 drivers and without realising it he opened the argument that labour wanted free movement and that is just not electorally a good place to be in
Those in the media and on here who attempt to trash the new visa quota scheme opening for drivers and butchers by saying the UK has capitulated and are now appealing to EU workers to fill the shortfall, either through ignorance or maleficence, do not understand that this is exactly how the new visa quota scheme should be working and was impossible within the EU. Also note how the media keep referring to bringing in EU workers when the visa quota scheme applies worldwide and requires a salary of £25,600 or more and fluent English
As we have seen this morning Germany are facing shortfalls in their supermarkets for Christmas and when you see container ships stranded all across the globe, (and still they are moored off Anglesey) then these shortages apply right across Europe and beyond and Brexit is a minor component of this story
I just do not see the UK re-joining the EU not least because month by month we draw further away and I believe among the population at large they just want to get on with their lives.
Indeed it appears this is the case in some EU countries resulting in the EU dramatic change of mind on NI and we must hope that this results in a mutual agreement with the EU and even heralds a new cooperative period
There will always those who lament the loss of our EU membership and I do share their dismay that they cannot enjoy the same freedoms in Europe, but maybe someday even that may be mitigated
Renewables overall are far better for the planet and sustainable with human life
We live in an increasingly complicated and interconnected world - yet the politically active, especially with social media, want to see everything as black or white, good or evil.
There is almost no chance of our onshoring that industry - rather more chance in Europe.
I would like to see a bit more capital capital L Liberal from the Lib Dems. We are not an authoritarian party so should stop trying to be one.
I may have mentioned this before, but Germaine Greer's argument that there's no special role for fathers that is different to being a mother, and so fathers can simply be second mothers - love, care for, protect and guide their children - made a big impression on me.
I think I can therefore use context to tell the difference between use of mother, where it refers to something that doesn't include me, such as pregnancy, or breastfeeding, and other times when it can include me.
(and yes. No one denies that DC is a very clever boy)
Probably a hoaxer in a fat suit.
https://twitter.com/rogerquimbly/status/1448916724196298756?s=21
Sadly I think if we are going to get out of the mess it may be that we do have to rely on technology like carbon capture (I don't see us doing it any other way) before it is too late as I don't see other technical advancements coming in time. I'm not sure how that works in a capitalist world though.
Of course if we overcome the carbon issue, population growth will bring the next lot of issues with it (water, food, etc). I am very pro population control as a solution (not in the Hitler type of way) as that can be very rapid (within a generation). It does mean though we can't have constant growth and there are a multitude of other problems like the age issue to deal with also with this approach, which means many don't like it. I suspect you may be in that camp.
Re HYUFD: As always with him it is the logic and only the logic. I mean he made the point that the West is more polluting than Africa, particularly per head with which I agree (I mean how can you disagree?). I have now had 4 arguments with him recently and out of those 4 I have actually agreed with him on the point he was making on 3 of them. I know, why the hell am I arguing with him if I agree with him? But he comes out with these 'mad as a frog in a box' deductions, which he did yesterday that was completely unfounded in any logic whatsoever. And although umpteen people tell him he just can't get it. I am baffled as to how someone can't see this stuff. To me he is unique. It seems to be an extreme case of the Kruger Dunning effect when it comes to deduction.
It is like having a family argument and suddenly you find your mad uncle is supporting you. Anyone sensible would ignore it, but me, I stupidly go and have an argument with my mad uncle instead because I am embarrassed to have my opinion supported by irrational arguments.
If (and it's a big "if") what you describe happens it will take years and years - there will be a lot of dislocated careers and upset people along the way, people who didn't necessarily want to leave or move in the first place.
It's far better for open conversations to take place across government, the civil service, the major corporates, the third sector and media *now* about what common sense looks like - and exert a bit of leadership on best practice and guidance.
Otherwise, radical activists will fill the void under cloak of inclusion and be misguidedly followed by far too many.
The new “Let It Be” just dropped on Spotify.
Put your headphones on and enjoy.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/15/texas-redistricting-dallas-fort-worth/
You're the pb equivalent of Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates: @OnlyLivingBoy stars in 50 First Posts - tediously rehearsing the same arguments on the same subjects each and every day, before clearing the cache overnight and going right back to square one the next.
However on the issue with the environment the only thing that matters is technology. Realistically if we get to net zero by 2050 then we've achieved what we need to achieve - and if we haven't we've failed. But that only leaves us 28 years and two months until we reach 2050. Knock off nine months for pregnancies and you're talking 27 years and five months.
Being completely realistic the overwhelming majority of those who will be alive in 2050 are those who are alive or conceived already today.
There simply isn't the time or the possibility to affect population figures meaningfully in the next 27 years. Whether in that time you increase population by 2% or drop it by 2% is pretty irrelevant.
The only tool in our arsenal is technology, not population.
Churchillian stoop coming on nicely though.
https://www.mygov.scot/mother-baby-unit-family-fund
I had a wobble this morning. Other western european nations do have much lower case rates (by positive tests) and lower deaths right now. I suspect they have tighter controls. And that is the trade right there. I'm enjoying the fact that we are 'back to normal' for the most part. But covid is still claiming 150 people a day here.
Mainstream conservatism has gone rather odd.
The man suspected of killing five people with a bow and arrows and other weapons in Norway has been transferred to the public health service, a state prosecutor has said, amid continuing concerns about his mental health.
I guess this is because of his skin colour...right?
Secretive powerful X Lobby
X activists are infiltrating our schools to make our children X.
etc.
We've seen it all before. Try something new.
Tbh, I'm not sure Europe will get much of a bite either. Projects that are currently proceeding are in Korea, Japan and the US. No country in Europe will get the chequebook out and it would need a complete rewrite of state aid rules. Intel are talking big about a new EU foundry but they're also asking for €8bn. Who is going to give them that subsidy and how will they do it without breaking state aid rules? No one seems to know the answer to the questions and that means countries who are happy to pay the money are getting foundries. Aiui the new Japanese government is readying a $100bn industrial regeneration fund and the US is doing something similar, no country in the EU (or the UK) can compete with that.
We all want to decouple from China and Chinese supply chains but we're relying in private companies to do it in Europe. That's just never going to happen because companies will always pick the cheaper option and the cheaper option will generally be a Chinese import. In the end we just have to hope we can hang onto the coat tails of Japan and US to benefit from their state aid programmes. I don't see the UK or EU having anything close to what those two are doing.
BUT, and this is the key point, you specifically said population was not a factor. And you didn't just give it as an opinion, which would be fine. If you had I would politely disagree and maybe argue the point as we all have different opinions and I would be in agreement with your solution you proposed which I do agree with.
But no you didn't do that. What you actually did was make a statement deducing it from another unrelated fact. The deduction was unfounded. You moved it from opinion to fact and it just wasn't a fact. It was an opinion.
It was that, that was challenged by others so quickly (and then by me). I doubt any who challenged you disagreed with your solution.
You do get don't you that on the last 4 arguments we have had I have only disagreed with the point you are making once, but it is hard to support you when you come out with deductions that don't stand up to scrutiny, even if I agree with the thrust of your argument.