I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
All gerrymandering is outrageous. It is a direct affront to democracy, and - yes - the Democrats started it, and are still at it today.
But the answer is not to say "everyone does it. so it's OK", it's to say "how can we come to a solution so gerrymandering doesn't exist in future?"
If we get rid of gerrymandering, we make individual votes more meaningful. That means people have more stake in the political process.
It is notable that wherever there have been ballot initiatives against gerrymandering, they have passed (often by wide margins).
The solution is either to have a wholly independent group to draw the boundaries or to do away with the current boundaries and adopt a wholly proportional system based on much larger areas. I appreciate electing the dog catcher by STV may not be everyone's idea of electoral paradise (especially the dogs) but unless someone is prepared to be seen and accepted as wholly impartial, the current absurdities will continue.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
How do you know that? What evidence do you have? I at least know a few that have made the move, though I admit they won't be fully representative.
There will be some liberals moving because of high house prices, there will be some conservatives moving too for cultural and high tax reasons.
Conservative Louisiana and Oklahoma and Ohio also send large numbers of migrants to Texas too
How do you know these things? You have yet to give any evidence. I at least have anecdotes.
You have anecdote.
The 2 top states with migrants moving to Texas are California and Trump voting Florida, followed by Trump voting Louisiana and Oklahoma
I assume by your emphasis on 'Trump voting' you are arguing their will be more Republicans moving from Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma to Texas because there are more of them. Yet you abandon that argument re California. Any reason?
If there are specific reasons why Republicans may be moving from California over Democrats, don't you think the same might be true re Democrats in Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma?
Texas is pretty big (29 million) so sweeping generalisations should be treated with caution but I’ll throw in a few myself as to what is happening there which are shifting the voting patterns:
- College-educated professionals moving to places such as Dallas and Houston, as they move away from being oil towns, plus liberal cities such as Austin and San Antonio. Help to Democrats - Students coming to Texas to study and who stay - ditto - People fleeing California because of what is happening there. There will be exceptions but expect this more positive for the Republicans, as they don’t want CA replicated in Texas. - People coming from Florida and Louisiana. Probably coming for jobs than politicised reasons but I would think those fleeing “illiberal” Florida / Louisiana are not going to choose Texas. So probably helps Republicans in the state; - Hispanic vote moving more GOP
The latter I think is the crucial point. If the Hispanic vote wasn’t shifting, I would say TX would become more like North Carolina where an influx of professionals into Raleigh has helped the Democrats. But the Hispanic vote is trending more GOP and so, I’m inclined to think that 2020 was the peak of Democrat chances in TX - from now on, a combination of the Hispanic vote shift plus some migration from CA and other Republican areas bolsters their position. I also suspect some of what Abbott is doing will also make TX less attractive a place to live for liberals.
Interesting, but I disagree.
I think that the trends in Texas are really very similar to the ones in Arizona. Almost all the growth in Texas's population is in urban and suburban areas, as the State become the US's second tech hub behind California.
Texas was a resource State, but it is becoming a high tech, high education state, and I think that works against the Republicans in the long run.
Actually, quite a lot of your thesis overlaps with mine - namely that Texas’ profile is changing into being high tech from being resource and that helps the Democrats.
My point re the trend is that the balancing factors are more favouring the Republicans over time. While Trump may have fallen amongst Hispanic graduates, the fact it went up overall amongst Hispanics is the more important point.
I flagged on here during the 2020 election that one of the big errors the Democrats were making was that all non-white groups are one big happy family. They are not. Many Hispanics consider themselves white (we know more than a few). There is also not the same historical issues for Hispanic as for Blacks in the US.
Its wrong to judge people based on their skin colour.
There is never a good reason to do it.
The same has happened in the UK where the Labour Party likes to act like its the only party for minorities - which must be news for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Education Secretary etc
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
@HYUFD - it is the urban and suburban areas of Texas which have been growing, and which have also been becoming more Democrat.
That does not suggest that it is California conservatives which are moving.
Trump won 232 counties out of 254 in Texas in 2020, Biden just 22.
Trump also won 22 out of 36 Texan congressional districts
The fastest growing county in Texas - Hays - flipped from Trump to Biden.
Interestingly if you determined the winner of Texas via FPTP of the Counties (like how the Electoral College is determined) then Biden won a landslide.
The 22 counties that Biden won cast a total of 6,260,179 votes The 232 counties that Trump won cast a total of 5,054,877 votes
Gosh that is remarkable. I'd that due to gerrymandering or disproportionate turnout or what?
Err, no. It’s because those counties that the Democrat won had the biggest populations. And also substantial minorities of Republican voters.
However, it’s moot because that is not how the system works.
Anyway, on gerrymandering, here is a classic example of a partisan state heavily zigzagging it’s districts to rig the seats in one party’s favour. I’m sure those who criticise sharply states such as Texas for being a threat to democracy will do exactly the same here:
All gerrymandering is outrageous. It is a direct affront to democracy, and - yes - the Democrats started it, and are still at it today.
But the answer is not to say "everyone does it. so it's OK", it's to say "how can we come to a solution so gerrymandering doesn't exist in future?"
If we get rid of gerrymandering, we make individual votes more meaningful. That means people have more stake in the political process.
It is notable that wherever there have been ballot initiatives against gerrymandering, they have passed (often by wide margins).
@rcs1000 i probably didn’t express myself properly but I’m against all gerrymandering whether Democrat or Republican because it is skewing the rules. Likewise, I’m against trying to overturn election results, whichever side. My issue with a few on this site (and definitely not you) is their willingness to scream loudly at every Republican move but then try to justify it when the Democrats make similar moves.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
Sterling certainly seems to mince along a bit as his career progresess - but to be fair so do I.
He runs like Velma from Scooby Doo, but its not him! Married w kids isnt he?
It was just a guess as to who your mate's gaydar was picking up - Anyway you said you weren't going to speculate so I think we should probably stop now.
The concept of "gaydar" is more than a little eeeuw, don't you think? And completely phony anyway, I know both straight people who are camp as fuck and gays with whom you would never know if you didn't know.
Graham Le Saux read the Guardian in the dressing room. That raised some eyebrows.
EDIT: And not only that the Graham was spelt Graeme. I mean c'mon ...
Nod's as good as a wink... Bet he has immaculate taste in soft furnishings, too.
There is a brilliant interview with Le Saux on the "Quickly Kevin" podcast, which is generally really good, where he discusses the environment at Chelsea, the homophobic abuse he got along with a lot of other topics. One of my favourites
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
How do you know that? What evidence do you have? I at least know a few that have made the move, though I admit they won't be fully representative.
There will be some liberals moving because of high house prices, there will be some conservatives moving too for cultural and high tax reasons.
Conservative Louisiana and Oklahoma and Ohio also send large numbers of migrants to Texas too
How do you know these things? You have yet to give any evidence. I at least have anecdotes.
You have anecdote.
The 2 top states with migrants moving to Texas are California and Trump voting Florida, followed by Trump voting Louisiana and Oklahoma
I assume by your emphasis on 'Trump voting' you are arguing their will be more Republicans moving from Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma to Texas because there are more of them. Yet you abandon that argument re California. Any reason?
If there are specific reasons why Republicans may be moving from California over Democrats, don't you think the same might be true re Democrats in Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma?
Texas is pretty big (29 million) so sweeping generalisations should be treated with caution but I’ll throw in a few myself as to what is happening there which are shifting the voting patterns:
- College-educated professionals moving to places such as Dallas and Houston, as they move away from being oil towns, plus liberal cities such as Austin and San Antonio. Help to Democrats - Students coming to Texas to study and who stay - ditto - People fleeing California because of what is happening there. There will be exceptions but expect this more positive for the Republicans, as they don’t want CA replicated in Texas. - People coming from Florida and Louisiana. Probably coming for jobs than politicised reasons but I would think those fleeing “illiberal” Florida / Louisiana are not going to choose Texas. So probably helps Republicans in the state; - Hispanic vote moving more GOP
The latter I think is the crucial point. If the Hispanic vote wasn’t shifting, I would say TX would become more like North Carolina where an influx of professionals into Raleigh has helped the Democrats. But the Hispanic vote is trending more GOP and so, I’m inclined to think that 2020 was the peak of Democrat chances in TX - from now on, a combination of the Hispanic vote shift plus some migration from CA and other Republican areas bolsters their position. I also suspect some of what Abbott is doing will also make TX less attractive a place to live for liberals.
Interesting, but I disagree.
I think that the trends in Texas are really very similar to the ones in Arizona. Almost all the growth in Texas's population is in urban and suburban areas, as the State become the US's second tech hub behind California.
Texas was a resource State, but it is becoming a high tech, high education state, and I think that works against the Republicans in the long run.
Actually, quite a lot of your thesis overlaps with mine - namely that Texas’ profile is changing into being high tech from being resource and that helps the Democrats.
My point re the trend is that the balancing factors are more favouring the Republicans over time. While Trump may have fallen amongst Hispanic graduates, the fact it went up overall amongst Hispanics is the more important point.
I flagged on here during the 2020 election that one of the big errors the Democrats were making was that all non-white groups are one big happy family. They are not. Many Hispanics consider themselves white (we know more than a few). There is also not the same historical issues for Hispanic as for Blacks in the US.
The problem is that education is becoming a much better marker than skin colour for voting. So, unless there is an unlimited supply of non college educated Hispanics, then the demographics will probably keep trending Left. (While, by contrast, the demographics in the old rust belt will continue to trend Republican. For exactly the same reason - older populations, fewer college graduates.)
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
How will (can) we ever know which is the case? If we can't know, then even if you are right, it is probably better for the industry to assume under representation is at least partly down to culture.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
How will (can) we ever know which is the case? If we can't know, then even if you are right, it is probably better for the industry to assume under representation is at least partly down to culture.
How about not worrying about "under" or "over" "representation" and instead if there's any issues tackling them, and if there's not then move on unless anyone says there is an issue?
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
@HYUFD - it is the urban and suburban areas of Texas which have been growing, and which have also been becoming more Democrat.
That does not suggest that it is California conservatives which are moving.
Trump won 232 counties out of 254 in Texas in 2020, Biden just 22.
Trump also won 22 out of 36 Texan congressional districts
The fastest growing county in Texas - Hays - flipped from Trump to Biden.
Interestingly if you determined the winner of Texas via FPTP of the Counties (like how the Electoral College is determined) then Biden won a landslide.
The 22 counties that Biden won cast a total of 6,260,179 votes The 232 counties that Trump won cast a total of 5,054,877 votes
Gosh that is remarkable. I'd that due to gerrymandering or disproportionate turnout or what?
Err, no. It’s because those counties that the Democrat won had the biggest populations. And also substantial minorities of Republican voters.
However, it’s moot because that is not how the system works.
Anyway, on gerrymandering, here is a classic example of a partisan state heavily zigzagging it’s districts to rig the seats in one party’s favour. I’m sure those who criticise sharply states such as Texas for being a threat to democracy will do exactly the same here:
All gerrymandering is outrageous. It is a direct affront to democracy, and - yes - the Democrats started it, and are still at it today.
But the answer is not to say "everyone does it. so it's OK", it's to say "how can we come to a solution so gerrymandering doesn't exist in future?"
If we get rid of gerrymandering, we make individual votes more meaningful. That means people have more stake in the political process.
It is notable that wherever there have been ballot initiatives against gerrymandering, they have passed (often by wide margins).
@rcs1000 i probably didn’t express myself properly but I’m against all gerrymandering whether Democrat or Republican because it is skewing the rules. Likewise, I’m against trying to overturn election results, whichever side. My issue with a few on this site (and definitely not you) is their willingness to scream loudly at every Republican move but then try to justify it when the Democrats make similar moves.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I don't have the stats to know whether more gay people prefer to work in fashion than be professional footballers nor do we have an idea of causality. Have many gay people really wanted to be footballers, for example, but were repelled and became involved in fashion instead.
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
How do you know that? What evidence do you have? I at least know a few that have made the move, though I admit they won't be fully representative.
There will be some liberals moving because of high house prices, there will be some conservatives moving too for cultural and high tax reasons.
Conservative Louisiana and Oklahoma and Ohio also send large numbers of migrants to Texas too
How do you know these things? You have yet to give any evidence. I at least have anecdotes.
You have anecdote.
The 2 top states with migrants moving to Texas are California and Trump voting Florida, followed by Trump voting Louisiana and Oklahoma
I assume by your emphasis on 'Trump voting' you are arguing their will be more Republicans moving from Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma to Texas because there are more of them. Yet you abandon that argument re California. Any reason?
If there are specific reasons why Republicans may be moving from California over Democrats, don't you think the same might be true re Democrats in Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma?
Texas is pretty big (29 million) so sweeping generalisations should be treated with caution but I’ll throw in a few myself as to what is happening there which are shifting the voting patterns:
- College-educated professionals moving to places such as Dallas and Houston, as they move away from being oil towns, plus liberal cities such as Austin and San Antonio. Help to Democrats - Students coming to Texas to study and who stay - ditto - People fleeing California because of what is happening there. There will be exceptions but expect this more positive for the Republicans, as they don’t want CA replicated in Texas. - People coming from Florida and Louisiana. Probably coming for jobs than politicised reasons but I would think those fleeing “illiberal” Florida / Louisiana are not going to choose Texas. So probably helps Republicans in the state; - Hispanic vote moving more GOP
The latter I think is the crucial point. If the Hispanic vote wasn’t shifting, I would say TX would become more like North Carolina where an influx of professionals into Raleigh has helped the Democrats. But the Hispanic vote is trending more GOP and so, I’m inclined to think that 2020 was the peak of Democrat chances in TX - from now on, a combination of the Hispanic vote shift plus some migration from CA and other Republican areas bolsters their position. I also suspect some of what Abbott is doing will also make TX less attractive a place to live for liberals.
Interesting, but I disagree.
I think that the trends in Texas are really very similar to the ones in Arizona. Almost all the growth in Texas's population is in urban and suburban areas, as the State become the US's second tech hub behind California.
Texas was a resource State, but it is becoming a high tech, high education state, and I think that works against the Republicans in the long run.
Actually, quite a lot of your thesis overlaps with mine - namely that Texas’ profile is changing into being high tech from being resource and that helps the Democrats.
My point re the trend is that the balancing factors are more favouring the Republicans over time. While Trump may have fallen amongst Hispanic graduates, the fact it went up overall amongst Hispanics is the more important point.
I flagged on here during the 2020 election that one of the big errors the Democrats were making was that all non-white groups are one big happy family. They are not. Many Hispanics consider themselves white (we know more than a few). There is also not the same historical issues for Hispanic as for Blacks in the US.
The problem is that education is becoming a much better marker than skin colour for voting. So, unless there is an unlimited supply of non college educated Hispanics, then the demographics will probably keep trending Left. (While, by contrast, the demographics in the old rust belt will continue to trend Republican. For exactly the same reason - older populations, fewer college graduates.)
Take a look at the trading statement from Pearson that was out Friday. Pearson is the #1 US Higher Ed textbook provider in the US.
Their shares fell nearly 15% because their US a higher education business is seeing enrolment declines which is impacting sales. They specifically highlighted fewer people going to university because they were taking jobs instead.
I’m not sure there is an inexorable March to university. US HE enrolment numbers have been flatlining for several years
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
How will (can) we ever know which is the case? If we can't know, then even if you are right, it is probably better for the industry to assume under representation is at least partly down to culture.
How about not worrying about "under" or "over" "representation" and instead if there's any issues tackling them, and if there's not then move on unless anyone says there is an issue?
I don't go regularly any more but homophobic abuse from the crowds was definitely a problem (albeit gradually diminishing) from the 90s to the 10s. I assume it still is, given recent player and fan complaints, so think it is good they are addressing it and not hiding behind gays prefer to work in fashion than play football.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I don't have the stats to know whether more gay people prefer to work in fashion than be professional footballers nor do we have an idea of causality. Have many gay people really wanted to be footballers, for example, but were repelled and became involved in fashion instead.
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Some stereotypes exist for a reason.
The problem is when you extrapolate from a stereotype and start assuming that everyone is like that, as opposed to treating every individual as an individual.
I think its quite probable that proportionately some gay people are indeed naturally (relatively) drawn more to fashion over football. That's not to say all are, but some are. Probably.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
@HYUFD - it is the urban and suburban areas of Texas which have been growing, and which have also been becoming more Democrat.
That does not suggest that it is California conservatives which are moving.
Tbf. You can be a "California Conservative". My Godfather was one. I doubt he'd have felt comfortable as a Texas Conservative.
The scary thing is that Socal Republicans (aka “Nixon Conservatives”) are now so moderate they barely fit in the modern GOP
There are a lot of politically homeless people in the US, who would prefer Republican policies on tax and regulation, but who think Trump is a dangerous demagogue.
I know - but my point was that there was a tone when Nixon Conservatives were seen as barely better than Goldwater’s crew
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
How will (can) we ever know which is the case? If we can't know, then even if you are right, it is probably better for the industry to assume under representation is at least partly down to culture.
How about not worrying about "under" or "over" "representation" and instead if there's any issues tackling them, and if there's not then move on unless anyone says there is an issue?
I don't go regularly any more but homophobic abuse from the crowds was definitely a problem (albeit gradually diminishing) from the 90s to the 10s. I assume it still is, given recent player and fan complaints, so think it is good they are addressing it and not hiding behind gays prefer to work in fashion than play football.
I think you have my point backwards.
My point is that if players and fans are complaining about abuse then that abuse should be tackled, regardless of representation. Whether the Premier League has more, fewer or the 'right' proportional amount of gay players shouldn't be the concern. The fact that people have reason to complain should be concerning enough!
The Premier League I believe from memory has proportionately more black players than the country as a whole or should be expected based upon proportionality alone. So does that mean that racism isn't an issue in the sport since they have black player 'representation'? No! Absolutely not! Players and fans complain about racist abuse, so it is a real issue that needs fighting.
'Proportionality' doesn't indicate whether you've got a problem or not. Opening your eyes and ears to the abuse before them and tackling the issues people are raising does.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I don't have the stats to know whether more gay people prefer to work in fashion than be professional footballers nor do we have an idea of causality. Have many gay people really wanted to be footballers, for example, but were repelled and became involved in fashion instead.
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Back to vacuous whataboutery, if your granny had bollox she would have been your grandpa type rubbish
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I thought you are North London… you get Kilburn or Kenwood…
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
How will (can) we ever know which is the case? If we can't know, then even if you are right, it is probably better for the industry to assume under representation is at least partly down to culture.
How about not worrying about "under" or "over" "representation" and instead if there's any issues tackling them, and if there's not then move on unless anyone says there is an issue?
I don't go regularly any more but homophobic abuse from the crowds was definitely a problem (albeit gradually diminishing) from the 90s to the 10s. I assume it still is, given recent player and fan complaints, so think it is good they are addressing it and not hiding behind gays prefer to work in fashion than play football.
That is down to the average IQ of the host of morons that are football supporters. Not all can be tarred with the same brush but I doubt England is any different to the sizeable amount of brain dead morons we have up here. A minority but a significant one.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Excuse me while I die laughing at the idea high earning upper middle class liberal 'progressives' would ever consider moving to Hartlepool, Barnsley and Stoke from Hampstead and Islington!
The rural home counties is as conservative as they would go (and that at least has Country Life housing and views)
Stoke? That doesn't begin with an "I". How can people move from Islington to Stoke?
More seriously, though, it sounds like you, a Conservative member and activist, are writing off Levelling Up already. Cat says goodbye to bag.
We can reduce the gap between North and South via HS2 and better infrastructure north of the Watford gap but we are never going to make Hull or Stoke global cities to rival London
But HS2 is pre-Johnson. Sounds like you plan to just surf for free on prior decisions and seek to pluck low hanging fruit. Lack of ambition. Or rather the ambition falls way way short of the bouncy rhetoric.
That's a rather strange argument, especially as infrastructure takes decades+ to plan and implement.
One common argument about the problems facing politics is short-termism: politicians only being concerned with policies that will show positive fruit before the next electoral cycle. Politicians who cancel long-standing projects just to replace them with 'their' projects, which themselves get cancelled within 4-5 years, should be condemned.
Just look at the US and space: a new administration comes in, looks at a multi-year project, then cancels it. It's massively wasteful, and the 'new' projects are often worse than what preceded them. (Biden's been a rare example who hasn't).
I'm pleasantly surprised Johnson hasn't done much cancelling.
The real question is what long-term projects a politician *starts* whilst in power: I'm glad that Biden's infrastructure bill had received cross-party support - albeit it is being held up by his own party!
That WAS my argument. HS2 isn't a Johnson levelling up initiative. I agree with your general point and going ahead with HS2 is a decision of this government I support. It's easy to nitpick your way out of making these big investments, it's never the right time, there's always influential people and voters who are het up and against, energetic autodidacts saying they know better, let's just delay and delay, or cancel, leave it to somebody else in a few years, bla bla, but then what happens is nothing happens, and time passes, and an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs creeps up on you. It eventually becomes intolerable and now you HAVE to act, by which time it's got harder and more expensive and you've bent things even more out of shape with all the tactical "fixes" you've done and the compromises you've made in order to keep the previous show on the road. To me it's very like when you put off embracing new tech in your personal life, something I'm habitually guilty of. It's always the wrong decision to "hold out" and I never learn.
Actually, in tech at a personal level, it's often the 'right' decision to hold out, at least for a year. Things get cheaper, and unless you're really a power user (hint: few of us are, although we kid ourselves we are), the provision of (say) a 12MP camera over an 8 or 10MP is pretty much meaningless. Skill in composure and usage overwhelms the pixel count. You pay a hefty premium to be on the bleeding edge.
I still haven't seen a reasonable use-case for home assistants such as Echo/Home that overwhelms the loss of privacy. Others may differ.
Ah yes, agreed. You don't want to pile in unless it's a real interest. But you also don't want to be almost the last under 60 in the country to get a smartphone (2019) or to have only discovered googlemaps in 2020. Or to be still texting people (now) when everyone's gone to whatsup.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I don't have the stats to know whether more gay people prefer to work in fashion than be professional footballers nor do we have an idea of causality. Have many gay people really wanted to be footballers, for example, but were repelled and became involved in fashion instead.
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Back to vacuous whataboutery, if your granny had bollox she would have been your grandpa type rubbish
Evening Malc. Not 100% surprised the discussion has gone over your head.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I thought you are North London… you get Kilburn or Kenwood…
I’m going to argue for Chelsea
You can't stay in Chelsea. That's the whole point of this.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hey, correct. I can move to Kilburn instead of Knightsbridge. Phew, genuinely feel I've had a close escape there.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I don't have the stats to know whether more gay people prefer to work in fashion than be professional footballers nor do we have an idea of causality. Have many gay people really wanted to be footballers, for example, but were repelled and became involved in fashion instead.
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Back to vacuous whataboutery, if your granny had bollox she would have been your grandpa type rubbish
Can tentatively venture that you haven’t quite grasped the complexities of this discussion? Maybe?
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hey, correct. I can move to Kilburn instead of Knightsbridge. Phew, genuinely feel I've had a close escape there.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
@HYUFD - it is the urban and suburban areas of Texas which have been growing, and which have also been becoming more Democrat.
That does not suggest that it is California conservatives which are moving.
Tbf. You can be a "California Conservative". My Godfather was one. I doubt he'd have felt comfortable as a Texas Conservative.
The scary thing is that Socal Republicans (aka “Nixon Conservatives”) are now so moderate they barely fit in the modern GOP
There are a lot of politically homeless people in the US, who would prefer Republican policies on tax and regulation, but who think Trump is a dangerous demagogue.
It's worth noting that Wills is as popular as The Queen now.
Yes, there will be a short interregnum. But the monarchy, in the UK at least, is set to be fine for the next few decades barring some catastrophic event.
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I don't have the stats to know whether more gay people prefer to work in fashion than be professional footballers nor do we have an idea of causality. Have many gay people really wanted to be footballers, for example, but were repelled and became involved in fashion instead.
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Back to vacuous whataboutery, if your granny had bollox she would have been your grandpa type rubbish
Evening Malc. Not 100% surprised the discussion has gone over your head.
Evening Topping , it is absolute bollox so no surprise to me either. It matters not a jot what they prefer , it is the point that the morons at football are so insecure and thick that they shout homophobic abuse. It is very telling.
It's worth noting that Wills is as popular as The Queen now.
Yes, there will be a short interregnum. But the monarchy, in the UK at least, is set to be fine for the next few decades barring some catastrophic event.
He comports himself well, and his still-beautiful wife (grand-daughter of a coalminer!) never puts a foot wrong
He inherited his grandmother's dutiful genes, she is exceptionally good at a difficult task, for which she was never "trained"
William has surely looked around his family and seen what works, and what doesn't. Don't be a drunk - Margaret. Don't be a sex pest (at best) - Andrew. Don't be a Woke twit - his brother with the blinking therapy. Don't be too eccentric and opinionated - Dad.
What works? What makes you incredibly popular? What will ensure that William's kids also become British royals? Being like the Queen
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Excuse me while I die laughing at the idea high earning upper middle class liberal 'progressives' would ever consider moving to Hartlepool, Barnsley and Stoke from Hampstead and Islington!
The rural home counties is as conservative as they would go (and that at least has Country Life housing and views)
Stoke? That doesn't begin with an "I". How can people move from Islington to Stoke?
More seriously, though, it sounds like you, a Conservative member and activist, are writing off Levelling Up already. Cat says goodbye to bag.
The Islingtonians would get a choice of Ilkley, Ilkeston and Immingham.
The whole concept of 'levelling up' is based on the theory that everywhere else wants to become more like London and the South-East.
Which is not something I hear expressed in the real world nor given the housing unaffordability, inequality and general congestion there is it something I would want.
Rather I think its advantageous for there to be variation in different parts of the country with people being able to move to one which more suits their interests, work or lifestyle.
So where does that leave 'levelling up' ?
Perhaps as nothing more than a traditional political bung to areas which voted for the government.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
I had to read that twice, as I was initially feeling somewhat sorry for you. However the typeface on my iPad is small and I’d had a couple of drinks. So I no longer feel sorry for you!
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hey, correct. I can move to Kilburn instead of Knightsbridge. Phew, genuinely feel I've had a close escape there.
Oof, Sunil is right, Ilford is nearer to me. Hopefully there is another "I" closer and nicer
Hang on, the game is you move to somewhere starting with the same letter as the place you live in, not your PB name... although I do live somewhere beginning with I, so it doesnt matter
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
Can get chilly at depth though. I have a PADI ticket but my happiest diving memory is from Zanzibar where I hitched a ride on a dive boat to go snorkeling. After 2 hours the scuba divers were freezing cold, 300 dollars poorer and wanting to go home, and I had to be dragged out of the water.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
It's a good thing to have at a party (post-Covid, I suppose) - you'd feel daft having it on your own. Personally I've always liked raclette more - melted cheese, new potatos, gherkins and light flavouring.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hey, correct. I can move to Kilburn instead of Knightsbridge. Phew, genuinely feel I've had a close escape there.
Oof, Sunil is right, Ilford is nearer to me. Hopefully there is another "I" closer and nicer
Not sure everyone moving around inside the m25 counts as migration! Ipswich for you and no Kilburn for Kinabalu. Kettering or Kidderminster.
It's worth noting that Wills is as popular as The Queen now.
Yes, there will be a short interregnum. But the monarchy, in the UK at least, is set to be fine for the next few decades barring some catastrophic event.
He comports himself well, and his still-beautiful wife (grand-daughter of a coalminer!) never puts a foot wrong
He inherited his grandmother's dutiful genes, she is exceptionally good at a difficult task, for which she was never "trained"
William has surely looked around his family and seen what works, and what doesn't. Don't be a drunk - Margaret. Don't be a sex pest (at best) - Andrew. Don't be a Woke twit - his brother with the blinking therapy. Don't be too eccentric and opinionated - Dad.
What works? What makes you incredibly popular? What will ensure that William's kids also become British royals? Being like the Queen
Exactly. It's not true that to be a successful monarch you mustn't be political - in fact, you have to be very political but it's with a decidedly small-p: through being shrewd and astute.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hey, correct. I can move to Kilburn instead of Knightsbridge. Phew, genuinely feel I've had a close escape there.
Oof, Sunil is right, Ilford is nearer to me. Hopefully there is another "I" closer and nicer
Not sure everyone moving around inside the m25 counts as migration! Ipswich for you and no Kilburn for Kinabalu. Kettering or Kidderminster.
There’s a village near here called Inworth, if that helps. Has a restaurant called the Red Dog Cafe which seems well thought of.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
Can get chilly at depth though. I have a PADI ticket but my happiest diving memory is from Zanzibar where I hitched a ride on a dive boat to go snorkeling. After 2 hours the scuba divers were freezing cold, 300 dollars poorer and wanting to go home, and I had to be dragged out of the water.
Yes there are places where the snorkelling is much better than the diving. The Maldives is classic
You can sail out three hours, go deep underwater, see the odd turtle, come home
Meanwhile the snorkellers have seen six million fish, reef sharks, rays, stingers, turtles (like you) and are already in the bar
But I remember a drift dive I did in the Barrier Reef, in a strong current, That was exceptional. It really was like spinning through deep space, tho blue, and full of eerie life
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hey, correct. I can move to Kilburn instead of Knightsbridge. Phew, genuinely feel I've had a close escape there.
Oof, Sunil is right, Ilford is nearer to me. Hopefully there is another "I" closer and nicer
Not sure everyone moving around inside the m25 counts as migration! Ipswich for you and no Kilburn for Kinabalu. Kettering or Kidderminster.
There’s a village near here called Inworth, if that helps. Has a restaurant called the Red Dog Cafe which seems well thought of.
The Blue Strawberry a few mins from there off the A12 is decent as well. Hope you find a nice restaurant in Oldham!
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Excuse me while I die laughing at the idea high earning upper middle class liberal 'progressives' would ever consider moving to Hartlepool, Barnsley and Stoke from Hampstead and Islington!
The rural home counties is as conservative as they would go (and that at least has Country Life housing and views)
Stoke? That doesn't begin with an "I". How can people move from Islington to Stoke?
More seriously, though, it sounds like you, a Conservative member and activist, are writing off Levelling Up already. Cat says goodbye to bag.
The Islingtonians would get a choice of Ilkley, Ilkeston and Immingham.
The whole concept of 'levelling up' is based on the theory that everywhere else wants to become more like London and the South-East.
Which is not something I hear expressed in the real world nor given the housing unaffordability, inequality and general congestion there is it something I would want.
Rather I think its advantageous for there to be variation in different parts of the country with people being able to move to one which more suits their interests, work or lifestyle.
So where does that leave 'levelling up' ?
Perhaps as nothing more than a traditional political bung to areas which voted for the government.
Yes, I don't expect it to amount to much more than that. I think your habitual cynicism is on the mark this time.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Same here, supposedly top restaurant for it and atmosphere was good but cannot say I would be desperate to do again. A pot of cheese and a bag of potatoes and a few other things, not my most memorable.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Mulled wine is a good comparison
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
The scary thing is that Socal Republicans (aka “Nixon Conservatives”) are now so moderate they barely fit in the modern GOP
This sounds familiar from HYUFD's discussions with BigG.
Party loyalty is very "sticky", though isn't it? With the Senate split 50-50, anyone could be famous by crossing the floor (either way), but nobody's even talking about it. In Parliament, Johnson has ejected a whole swathe of the leadership of the traditional party, but do they defect? No - they just feel regretful and do other things. Conversely, when Corbyn was leader, there were quite a few who formed mini-groups outside, but almost nobody actually crossed over to the Tories.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
A spot on discription. Fun to start with then gets very boring.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
A spot on discription. Fun to start with then gets very boring.
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
I think you are absolutely correct about who is moving: the reality is that LA/SF/The Valley are all ridiculously expensive places to live. A software engineer earning $120k/year (which is hardly a pittance) with a wife earning $60k (also not a pittance) will struggle to earn enough to buy a three bedroom house in the Bay Area.
If they move to Phoenix or Austin, and his salary drops to $100k, and hers to $50k - well, suddenly they can afford a nice house, in a nice area, with decent public schools.
California is paying the price for imposing far too many restrictions on new building, which has sent property prices through the roof.
(With a friend, I bought a plot of land in Los Angeles to build a spec house. We acquired it three years ago. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground.)
Yes, well you and I both know people who have made the move. HYFUD has got the voices in his head.
I know quite a few people who've left the Bay Area to move to places like South Carolina and Texas in the last couple of years.
This is what we progressives need to counter the greater FPTP efficiency of the reactionary vote. Hopefully we'll see similar here in England. Migration in serious numbers from Highgate to Hartlepool, Battersea to Barnsley, Islington to any of the many rough & ready provincial places starting with an "I". Once Johnson has Levelled Up everywhere there's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't happen.
Islywn ?
That sounds like Wales so still not quite fitting the bill. Ixworth is the place I naturally think of as where somebody from Islington might like to move once the Magnificent Muscly Man has Got Levelling Up Done - as I think he likes to put it, in case our attention strays after 4 words.
Ipswich?
Geographically close to my suggestion of Ixworth.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
I have done plenty of canvassing in Tooting in my time.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hey, correct. I can move to Kilburn instead of Knightsbridge. Phew, genuinely feel I've had a close escape there.
Oof, Sunil is right, Ilford is nearer to me. Hopefully there is another "I" closer and nicer
Hang on, the game is you move to somewhere starting with the same letter as the place you live in, not your PB name... although I do live somewhere beginning with I, so it doesnt matter
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Mulled wine is a good comparison
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
A fondue is not really a meal it's more of a social thing. Quite fun in it's way. But yes you don't want it as a whole meal really. Hefty shared starter maybe. Followed by a nice fillet steak and romesco sauce.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
It gets very boring very quickly.
Re skiing, as someone who was a black/yellow run skier I am somewhat skeptical to put it mildly that you were put on a black run on your first day and you are here to post and your friend wasn't up for manslaughter.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
It gets very boring very quickly.
Re skiing, as someone who was a black/yellow run skier I am somewhat skeptical to put it mildly that you were put on a black run on your first day and you are here to post and your friend wasn't up for manslaughter.
I dunno. Honestly. He swears it is true, to this day
I was an absolute novice, he was an experienced skiier, we were both in our early 20s, he was as big an idiot as me, he claims he took me to the top of a black run (coz he wanted to do it) and then thought Fuck it, and pushed me off
I remember being absolutely terrified, it was basically a cliff, almost vertical. And I fell down the whole way. Then I did it again, and again, and again, til I was standing up
If it wasn't a black run it was certainly something pretty daunting. Is that yellow run? I have no idea. I don't ski It was definitely NOT a nursery slope, it was right at the top of a big Pyrenee
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Mulled wine is a good comparison
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
Mulled wine flatters to deceive is the problem with it. The first couple of swigs, it's hot and alcoholic, you're cold and sober, and it tastes good, so all is fine with the world. 5 mins later, it's gone tepid, you still have loads left, that clovey taste is overpowering everything, now you want to chuck it and have a scotch or a lager. Which you can't because if you're on mulled wine you're on mulled wine. Ordeal ensues. I keep falling for it though.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Mulled wine is a good comparison
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
It's strange how trivial things- like the smell of mulled wine- can become the cue for memories of a whole era.
Now it's receding into the past, I wonder what the cultural cues will be for the year of lockdown living? Our equivalent of the air raid siren evoking 1940?
My guesses are:
The bouncy theme tune from BBC Bitesize daily Lockdown lessons. Bound to be sampled in the pop hits of 2030.
I am a difficult person to feed. Mulled wine and fondue are on the no thank you list.
Tonight, I am trying a bottle of Gooseberry and Eldeflower wine from the Lyme Regis winery.. quite palatable.. and surprising because I loathe goosegogs...
I went to school with Luke Tuffs. He was always mad about football, so it's great to see him doing so well.
One of my mates is convinced a current Prem footballer is gay. I have to say there seems to be a lot in favour of his argument from what I have noticed, but I wont speculate with a name
There must be about 300 premier league players every week so it wouldn't surprise me if one of them was gay. Probably several.
If 1-2% of people are gay, then 3-6 Premier League players should be gay. if they are not out, then either: *) gay people are, for some reason, not good enough to be top-league players *) football discourages / prevents gay players from reaching the top flight, or *) players in the top flight don't feel free to come out, for whatever reason.
The first option is ridiculous, especially as several gay figures have come out in other sports, such as rugby. IMV it is therefore an issue within football, and one football should tackle.
It could be
d) players in the top flight do feel free to come out, but don't want to.
If there's ~3 top flight gay players then its entirely possible those three would rather keep their private life private and have their football rather than their sexuality be what is spoken about.
A bit like how a Tory MP 'came out' earlier this week but simply didn't speak about it before because she didn't think it important to speak about and its not what she wanted to be known for.
True. It's no one's business but their own.
That said if one of the reasons they don't want to come out is because of the perceived anti gay environment within football then that brings us back to it being football's problem.
I'd recommend watching the video. This issue is discussed.
In the 16-34 group, c. 3.5% of males identify as gay or bisexual. That comes out at 17 in the premier league or roughly 1 per dressing room in a given season. Seems pretty clear to me there’s a cultural problem.
I wouldn't assign every difference to a cultural problem.
There will be some sectors where its naturally higher than 3.5% and some where its naturally lower.
If its higher than 3.5% in fashion for instance then is that a "problem"?
It could be that gay people are naturally less interested in going into professional football in the first place so its naturally below 3.5% there, even without any "problems".
Less interested means or could mean reluctant on account of the culture.
It could mean that but that's not the only reason why.
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
I don't have the stats to know whether more gay people prefer to work in fashion than be professional footballers nor do we have an idea of causality. Have many gay people really wanted to be footballers, for example, but were repelled and became involved in fashion instead.
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Back to vacuous whataboutery, if your granny had bollox she would have been your grandpa type rubbish
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Same here, supposedly top restaurant for it and atmosphere was good but cannot say I would be desperate to do again. A pot of cheese and a bag of potatoes and a few other things, not my most memorable.
Yep. So you and I both had the fondue of a lifetime then - ie never again.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Mulled wine is a good comparison
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
It's strange how trivial things- like the smell of mulled wine- can become the cue for memories of a whole era.
Now it's receding into the past, I wonder what the cultural cues will be for the year of lockdown living? Our equivalent of the air raid siren evoking 1940?
My guesses are:
The bouncy theme tune from BBC Bitesize daily Lockdown lessons. Bound to be sampled in the pop hits of 2030.
Three. Word. Slogans.
What else?
That beep beep beep tune as Zoom meetings connect.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Mulled wine is a good comparison
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
It's the perfect comparison. As someone who has suffered through a lot of fondue (my wife being Swiss) I'm absolutely done with it. I really don't understand the attraction and I do like cheese and cheese products. I think if I could have it once a year and just 4-6 pieces of bread to dip I'd be ok with it. As it is I sit there pretending to like it at least once every few months so as not to offend my mother in law.
Last year we didn't go to Switzerland and it was great, we did a Chinese hotpot (Fondue Chinoise, for Swiss people) and it was bloody brilliant.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
Some lovely steamed potatoes with smoked sea salt butter
Cavolo Nero flash fried with garlic, chili flakes, kampot, and Ticino herbed saltflakes
Absolutely bloody lovely. You will have to take my word for it. One of the problems of lockdown is that I have learned to cook a lot of things so restaurants are much less impressive, and their prices therefore much more objectionable. A lot of this stuff is not hard
"Bank of England chief warns it ‘will have to act’ to curb inflation In speech to central bankers, Andrew Bailey makes no attempt to quell expectations of rate rise this year"
Why can we distinguish between culture and religion when it comes to Christianity but not when it comes to Islam?
The Bible says we should stone a woman to death for adultery but if a country implements that policy nobody is going to blame that on Christianity.
Find me a country implementing biblical law to real life and I'll condemn it.
USA Red States, way they're going. Joke, but only just.
Sadly not a joke given what's happening on Texas over women's rights and I've condemned them multiple times, really hoping the SCOTUS will restore those rights and over the long term those Californians moving to Texas will mean a Democratic governor.
The liberal majority in California will stay there as it is already a blue state.
It is conservatives in California who will be more likely to move to red states seeking lower taxes and more conservative values.
Now continue Hispanic immigration to Texas might turn it more blue but then there are also plenty of pro life Hispanic Catholics
A California republican voter isn't the same as a Texas republican voter. Additionally, where's your evidence that it's all GOO voters moving, from my anecdotes of friends it's mostly younger people struggling to get on the California property ladder that are moving and they're all pretty solid Dem voters. All four of the people I know who have made the journey are absolutely solid blue voters, and while I'm sure that's not a representative sample it does rather undermine your made up idea that it's all GOP voters moving to Texas.
Actually on the whole they are.
A California Republican voter will tend to live in rural parts of the state, be religious and often evangelical just as a Texas Republican voter is.
Certainly there has been plenty of movement of California conservatives to Arizona and Texas is no doubt the same.
Yes there might be a few California liberals moving from LA county or San Francisco to liberal areas of Texas like Austin but they will be the minority
How do you know that? What evidence do you have? I at least know a few that have made the move, though I admit they won't be fully representative.
There will be some liberals moving because of high house prices, there will be some conservatives moving too for cultural and high tax reasons.
Conservative Louisiana and Oklahoma and Ohio also send large numbers of migrants to Texas too
How do you know these things? You have yet to give any evidence. I at least have anecdotes.
You have anecdote.
The 2 top states with migrants moving to Texas are California and Trump voting Florida, followed by Trump voting Louisiana and Oklahoma
I assume by your emphasis on 'Trump voting' you are arguing their will be more Republicans moving from Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma to Texas because there are more of them. Yet you abandon that argument re California. Any reason?
If there are specific reasons why Republicans may be moving from California over Democrats, don't you think the same might be true re Democrats in Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma?
Texas is pretty big (29 million) so sweeping generalisations should be treated with caution but I’ll throw in a few myself as to what is happening there which are shifting the voting patterns:
- College-educated professionals moving to places such as Dallas and Houston, as they move away from being oil towns, plus liberal cities such as Austin and San Antonio. Help to Democrats - Students coming to Texas to study and who stay - ditto - People fleeing California because of what is happening there. There will be exceptions but expect this more positive for the Republicans, as they don’t want CA replicated in Texas. - People coming from Florida and Louisiana. Probably coming for jobs than politicised reasons but I would think those fleeing “illiberal” Florida / Louisiana are not going to choose Texas. So probably helps Republicans in the state; - Hispanic vote moving more GOP
The latter I think is the crucial point. If the Hispanic vote wasn’t shifting, I would say TX would become more like North Carolina where an influx of professionals into Raleigh has helped the Democrats. But the Hispanic vote is trending more GOP and so, I’m inclined to think that 2020 was the peak of Democrat chances in TX - from now on, a combination of the Hispanic vote shift plus some migration from CA and other Republican areas bolsters their position. I also suspect some of what Abbott is doing will also make TX less attractive a place to live for liberals.
Interesting, but I disagree.
I think that the trends in Texas are really very similar to the ones in Arizona. Almost all the growth in Texas's population is in urban and suburban areas, as the State become the US's second tech hub behind California.
Texas was a resource State, but it is becoming a high tech, high education state, and I think that works against the Republicans in the long run.
I didn't expect Biden to win Texas in 2020, I expected Trump to win by 5% but I thought Biden's lacklustre performance in Houston was very interesting considering he met/slightly exceeded expectations in the other metropolitan areas especially Austin. The strong Trump performance in the hispanic Texas border counties was also interesting although most of those counties had tiny populations.
Some lovely steamed potatoes with smoked sea salt butter
Cavolo Nero flash fried with garlic, chili flakes, kampot, and Ticino herbed saltflakes
Absolutely bloody lovely. You will have to take my word for it. One of the problems of lockdown is that I have learned to cook a lot of things so restaurants are much less impressive, and their prices therefore much more objectionable. A lot of this stuff is not hard
Agree, I rarely pay for pizza anywhere now. It's so easy and we've got an outdoor oven. £12-15 for a pizza is a joke when it's realistically £1-3 worth of ingredients, maybe £4 with luxury toppings like truffle.
Some lovely steamed potatoes with smoked sea salt butter
Cavolo Nero flash fried with garlic, chili flakes, kampot, and Ticino herbed saltflakes
Absolutely bloody lovely. You will have to take my word for it. One of the problems of lockdown is that I have learned to cook a lot of things so restaurants are much less impressive, and their prices therefore much more objectionable. A lot of this stuff is not hard
Agree, I rarely pay for pizza anywhere now. It's so easy and we've got an outdoor oven. £12-15 for a pizza is a joke when it's realistically £1-3 worth of ingredients, maybe £4 with luxury toppings like truffle.
We’re happy to buy pizza from good quality pizzerias or vans with the stoves. Can’t beat them. Would never buy a domino style one at all. They’re a doddle to make. Getting the dough right is easy and I use a little semolina flour in mine.
Some lovely steamed potatoes with smoked sea salt butter
Cavolo Nero flash fried with garlic, chili flakes, kampot, and Ticino herbed saltflakes
Absolutely bloody lovely. You will have to take my word for it. One of the problems of lockdown is that I have learned to cook a lot of things so restaurants are much less impressive, and their prices therefore much more objectionable. A lot of this stuff is not hard
Agree, I rarely pay for pizza anywhere now. It's so easy and we've got an outdoor oven. £12-15 for a pizza is a joke when it's realistically £1-3 worth of ingredients, maybe £4 with luxury toppings like truffle.
I do hope there are no inappropriate choices of toppings, such as ananas comosus.
I've just realised (I'm watching Raymond Blanc on TV) that I have NEVER HAD A FONDUE
Obviously not a skier. It is very overrated (fondue not skiing)
It always looks so good on TV, or in books. Melted cheese and wine and garlic. Is it not?
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
I've had a fondue just the once, in Geneva when I was taken out for dinner by an assertive Swiss banker who insisted on doing the ordering, you know what those types can be like, easier to go with the flow than create an 'atmosphere' by saying you'd prefer a steak. I found it great to start off with but it palled quickly and well before I'd finished. Rather like mulled wine does.
Mulled wine is a good comparison
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
It's strange how trivial things- like the smell of mulled wine- can become the cue for memories of a whole era.
Now it's receding into the past, I wonder what the cultural cues will be for the year of lockdown living? Our equivalent of the air raid siren evoking 1940?
My guesses are:
The bouncy theme tune from BBC Bitesize daily Lockdown lessons. Bound to be sampled in the pop hits of 2030.
Three. Word. Slogans.
What else?
That beep beep beep tune as Zoom meetings connect.
The glitchiness of a zoom
The acrid smell of your own breath, in a mask, no matter how often you clean your teeth
Deciding where to store your mask. Under your chin? Halfway up your arm?
Handwashing, handwashing, handwashing
The scent and feel of alcoholic hand gel. Squirt
Two metre apart queues for everything, with little footprints on the floor
Bleak bleak loneliness and just staring out of the window
Comments
There is never a good reason to do it.
The same has happened in the UK where the Labour Party likes to act like its the only party for minorities - which must be news for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Education Secretary etc
It could be that there's a correlation between who is gay and what they're interested in, even independent of any culture.
If so, is that a problem?
If a gay person is happier working in fashion than on a football pitch, not due to culture but because that's what they're personally interested in, then is that a problem?
https://play.acast.com/s/quicklykevin/graemelesaux-s02e10
https://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
Your post could be read that gay people somehow are "naturally" drawn to fashion over football which sounds a bit stereotype-y to me.
Their shares fell nearly 15% because their US a higher education business is seeing enrolment declines which is impacting sales. They specifically highlighted fewer people going to university because they were taking jobs instead.
I’m not sure there is an inexorable March to university. US HE enrolment numbers have been flatlining for several years
WinViz had Bangladesh at 74% to win at that point.
*Legendary modesty klaxon*
Really good effort, especially from Greaves.
Which is pronounced hubut.
The problem is when you extrapolate from a stereotype and start assuming that everyone is like that, as opposed to treating every individual as an individual.
I think its quite probable that proportionately some gay people are indeed naturally (relatively) drawn more to fashion over football. That's not to say all are, but some are. Probably.
My point is that if players and fans are complaining about abuse then that abuse should be tackled, regardless of representation. Whether the Premier League has more, fewer or the 'right' proportional amount of gay players shouldn't be the concern. The fact that people have reason to complain should be concerning enough!
The Premier League I believe from memory has proportionately more black players than the country as a whole or should be expected based upon proportionality alone. So does that mean that racism isn't an issue in the sport since they have black player 'representation'? No! Absolutely not! Players and fans complain about racist abuse, so it is a real issue that needs fighting.
'Proportionality' doesn't indicate whether you've got a problem or not. Opening your eyes and ears to the abuse before them and tackling the issues people are raising does.
Course your name starts with an "I" too, doesn't it. Which begs the obvious question - what if everybody had to move from where they are to the nearest place that begins with the same letter as their name?
It'd be Isleworth for you. Quite nice. Down near Twickenham and the river. Better than Romford for sure. So you'd be a winner. Unlike me who'd lose out big time. I'd have to move to Knightsbridge. Ghastly place, all bling no soul, the very opposite of me. Leon to Leytonstone, kind of descending a bit there, and Topping to Tooting, which I imagine he'd be pretty happy with. Lots to do in Tooting.
The wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time....
... but
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJunxkln578
Spurs up to 5th
West Ham up to 7th
I’m going to argue for Chelsea
What a country!
Wills would look alright if he wasn't a bawheid Hanoverian.
And surely Kilburn is closer to you than Knightsbridge.
As you are a newbie to London I understand your confusion.
Edit: I see @Charles got there first. And he, the Kinster, lives in Hampstead so that surely rules out Kenwood.
Hope it comes to pass, but I also doubt it.
Yes, there will be a short interregnum. But the monarchy, in the UK at least, is set to be fine for the next few decades barring some catastrophic event.
Edit: Buy your flaked Gruyere I meant!
He inherited his grandmother's dutiful genes, she is exceptionally good at a difficult task, for which she was never "trained"
William has surely looked around his family and seen what works, and what doesn't. Don't be a drunk - Margaret. Don't be a sex pest (at best) - Andrew. Don't be a Woke twit - his brother with the blinking therapy. Don't be too eccentric and opinionated - Dad.
What works? What makes you incredibly popular? What will ensure that William's kids also become British royals?
Being like the Queen
The whole concept of 'levelling up' is based on the theory that everywhere else wants to become more like London and the South-East.
Which is not something I hear expressed in the real world nor given the housing unaffordability, inequality and general congestion there is it something I would want.
Rather I think its advantageous for there to be variation in different parts of the country with people being able to move to one which more suits their interests, work or lifestyle.
So where does that leave 'levelling up' ?
Perhaps as nothing more than a traditional political bung to areas which voted for the government.
I DO think skiing is overrated. I did it once, in the Pyrenees, for one day, when a friend took me to the top of a mountain and pushed me off - down a black run. By the end of the day, after falling over 89 times, I was skiiing
But. meh. Cold, snow, snooty people, generalised euro-wankiness
I decided that scuba would be my thing. Sun, warmth, like being a cosmonaut underwater. Love it
So I no longer feel sorry for you!
Hang on, the game is you move to somewhere starting with the same letter as the place you live in, not your PB name... although I do live somewhere beginning with I, so it doesnt matter
I think a lot of the commentary has been overly simplistic, politicised and at-times flat-out wrong.
Let’s see if we can do better:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1449801652207239176?s=20
TLDR - earlier vaccination has lead to earlier waning - so govt needs to get on with booster shots!
You can sail out three hours, go deep underwater, see the odd turtle, come home
Meanwhile the snorkellers have seen six million fish, reef sharks, rays, stingers, turtles (like you) and are already in the bar
But I remember a drift dive I did in the Barrier Reef, in a strong current, That was exceptional. It really was like spinning through deep space, tho blue, and full of eerie life
Anecdotally the people who I have seen with breakthrough covid have been at different ages, rather than those done in Jan.
The image is more legible here:
https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1447958785159581696?t=BY5-SCOPmtTwAZp4zM0PmQ&s=19
I told a friend the other day that I might never drink mulled wine again, after the freezing park walks of lockdown 3 when we all had flasks of mulled wine. It got us through the worst, but, Jesus. Even the smell of cloves now can make me feel trapped
And yes, fondue, it's just a dip, really, isn't it? A fancy hot dip. Who wants that for an entire meal?
Party loyalty is very "sticky", though isn't it? With the Senate split 50-50, anyone could be famous by crossing the floor (either way), but nobody's even talking about it. In Parliament, Johnson has ejected a whole swathe of the leadership of the traditional party, but do they defect? No - they just feel regretful and do other things. Conversely, when Corbyn was leader, there were quite a few who formed mini-groups outside, but almost nobody actually crossed over to the Tories.
Re skiing, as someone who was a black/yellow run skier I am somewhat skeptical to put it mildly that you were put on a black run on your first day and you are here to post and your friend wasn't up for manslaughter.
I was an absolute novice, he was an experienced skiier, we were both in our early 20s, he was as big an idiot as me, he claims he took me to the top of a black run (coz he wanted to do it) and then thought Fuck it, and pushed me off
I remember being absolutely terrified, it was basically a cliff, almost vertical. And I fell down the whole way. Then I did it again, and again, and again, til I was standing up
If it wasn't a black run it was certainly something pretty daunting. Is that yellow run? I have no idea. I don't ski
It was definitely NOT a nursery slope, it was right at the top of a big Pyrenee
Now it's receding into the past, I wonder what the cultural cues will be for the year of lockdown living? Our equivalent of the air raid siren evoking 1940?
My guesses are:
The bouncy theme tune from BBC Bitesize daily Lockdown lessons. Bound to be sampled in the pop hits of 2030.
Three. Word. Slogans.
What else?
Tonight, I am trying a bottle of Gooseberry and Eldeflower wine from the Lyme Regis winery.. quite palatable.. and surprising because I loathe goosegogs...
Last year we didn't go to Switzerland and it was great, we did a Chinese hotpot (Fondue Chinoise, for Swiss people) and it was bloody brilliant.
Dover Sole meuniere
Some lovely steamed potatoes with smoked sea salt butter
Cavolo Nero flash fried with garlic, chili flakes, kampot, and Ticino herbed saltflakes
Absolutely bloody lovely. You will have to take my word for it. One of the problems of lockdown is that I have learned to cook a lot of things so restaurants are much less impressive, and their prices therefore much more objectionable. A lot of this stuff is not hard
In speech to central bankers, Andrew Bailey makes no attempt to quell expectations of rate rise this year"
https://www.ft.com/content/160e6e1a-2584-4013-8102-3ae5cfadb1d8
The acrid smell of your own breath, in a mask, no matter how often you clean your teeth
Deciding where to store your mask. Under your chin? Halfway up your arm?
Handwashing, handwashing, handwashing
The scent and feel of alcoholic hand gel. Squirt
Two metre apart queues for everything, with little footprints on the floor
Bleak bleak loneliness and just staring out of the window
Working out Case Fatality Ratios
Empty buses
Homeless zombies dying of thirst
The eerie sun of lockdown one
The first sex after seven months