Liz Truss moves from a 100/1 shot for next PM to 33/1 in just two weeks – politicalbetting.com

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

"Both vaccines are supposed to be administered in two doses, a prime and a booster, 21 days apart for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna. However, in data provided to the F.D.A., there are clues for a tantalizing possibility: that even a single dose may provide significant levels of protection against the disease.

If that’s shown to be the case, this would be a game changer, allowing us to vaccinate up to twice the number of people and greatly alleviating the suffering not just in the United States, but also in countries where vaccine shortages may take years to resolve."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/opinion/coronavirus-vaccine-doses.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

FYI, Sean Thomas's father has now also had the vaccine.

I called my parents today for a chat and they were keen to get off the phone because they wanted it free for the vax call from the surgery. That's how keen they are to get it.

They do usually want to talk to me, honest.

Have you told them that the best place to reach you is on pb?

- Actually that's food for thought. I ought to rein it back on the digital and do more flesh & blood. I will try.

Tell that to my daughters will you.

noneoftheabove said:

Northern_Al said:

For those raving about Liz Truss, I do recommend reading her full speech on equalities. I'll bet few have; only soundbites hit the airwaves.

The speech is shallow, intellectually incoherent, simply wrong in places, and riddled with a fair few contradictions. It is, at best, worth a grade D at A level. Is this the stuff of a future PM? I don't think so. If one were to compare it with, say, some of Macron's speeches where he is grappling with the issues currently facing French society, Truss's remarks reveal her for the lightweight she is.

Edit: so she's probably in with a very good chance of being next Tory leader.

The key is in your second sentence. Few have, few ever will. It is irrelevant for a 2020s politician whether they are coherent, shallow, accurate or consistent. The questions are will it play well with social media, will it motivate the faithful, annoy the enemy and generate publicity?

rcs1000 said:

Stocky said:

rcs1000 said:

Stocky said:

rcs1000 said:

Stocky said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.

The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.

I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".

Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.

Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.

Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.

Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.

You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.

I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.

But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.

You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.

Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.

Smaller is better. Closer to the people.

Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.

It depends upon how you define nationalism.

I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.

I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.

I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.

Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.

They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.

This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.

For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.

You`re not concerned about overall population size?

One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.

Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.

All of which depend on the size of the population.

I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.

Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?

Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.

The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.

I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.

Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.

Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.

Good post, but I doubt that non-human animal species are too concerned about the economic issues of the species that is responsible for their plight. You need to take off your human lens.

I'll take off my "human lens" when my wife's dog stops trying to kill me.

So as an excuse for chopping down the Amazon you want to claim self-defence?

Let me get this right, white people in the UK are allowed to exploit their natural resources, but brown people in Brazil should think of the bigger picture and just stay poor.

Do I have that right?

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

Stocky said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.

The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.

I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".

Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.

Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.

Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.

Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.

You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.

I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.

But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.

You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.

Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.

Smaller is better. Closer to the people.

Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.

It depends upon how you define nationalism.

I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.

I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.

I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.

Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.

They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.

This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.

For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.

You`re not concerned about overall population size?

Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.

Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?

I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.

The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.

But they use more resources.

I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).

That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.

We`re completely overrunning the planet already! 11-12 billion of us. Using and destroying everything.

How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?

It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.

I blame grass. It came up with a cunning plan to breed a species that would plant it everywhere.

Actually we should probably blame bacteria. There are more bacterial cells in human bodies than human cells.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.

The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.

I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".

Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.

Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.

Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.

Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.

You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.

I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.

But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.

You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.

Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.

Smaller is better. Closer to the people.

Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.

It depends upon how you define nationalism.

I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.

I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.

I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.

Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.

They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.

This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.

For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.

You`re not concerned about overall population size?

Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.

Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?

Well, there is always....

Megacity 1!

Could be Brit-Cit?

IshmaelZ said:

Flatlander said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Stocky said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.

The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.

I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".

Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.

Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.

Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.

Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.

You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.

I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.

But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.

You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.

Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.

Smaller is better. Closer to the people.

Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.

It depends upon how you define nationalism.

I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.

I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.

I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.

Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.

They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.

This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.

For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.

You`re not concerned about overall population size?

One thing that is interesting in the immigration debate is the refusal of a number of people to engage with the idea of what population size is optimal for the country.

Yet, the same people argue for planning (for decades in advance) for schools, hospitals, roads, railways, airports, house building, reservoir, electricity generation etc etc.

All of which depend on the size of the population.

I personally prefer the frankness of one Deep Green of my acquaintance - she was quite clear that she expected the population to be ever increasing, with a steady reduction in allowed housing space per person.

Your acquaintance laments this trend, presumably?

Personally, I believe that the government should have population target which is lower than now for environmental reasons, with incentives to reduce birth rate and a ban on building on green field sites. I realise that we deep ecologists are in a small minority on this. Most of us have given up, as it sounds like your acquaintance has.

The problem with that is that - unless you're a fan of euthanasia - then you end up with an increasingly small number of people of working age supporting a lot of old people.

I want to put this in context for a second. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, pensions and health care accounted for less than a quarter of UK government expenditure. They now account for 40%.

Our ageing population - and the triple lock - means that 40% of the UK government budget is going to grow much faster than the overall economy.

Austerity is the crowding out of spending on the young, by the old.

The other issues that the ongoing Biological revolution (combination of compute capability multiplied by biological techniques) is going to deliver some interesting things in the next 20 years.

The idea of 50 years of relative activity followed by another 50 of being a drag on everyone else may well come to end. Rather fast....

I've always been a fan of the legalisation (and subsidisation) of hard drugs for the over 60s. Plus, free hang gliding and paragliding if they're up for it.

You missed out spelunking and free climbing.

Cave diving or base jumping would be the "best" pastimes statistically. Or riding a motorbike at 95mph in first gear in the rain.

I always think it would be better to be "last seen heading strongly for the summit". Count me in for the paragliding and the climbing.

Wingsuits for me. youtube them to see what I mean.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

paulyork64 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not surprised she's moved in, she's excellent. Really done a tremendous job this year and is a standout star performer.

I considered submitting a piece recommending a bet on her at 100/1 but then Casino and OGH said it first and I missed placing one myself. But yes it was an excellent tip Casino and OGH well done.

And a blast from the past but well done bunnco
too for tipping her over a decade ago.

Still 100/1 available at betvictor.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

It's noticeable that In almost every poll since the Corbyn trouble, Labour have failed to get back to that 39-40 area they were approaching.

Mexicanpete said:

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

It's noticeable that In almost every poll since the Corbyn trouble, Labour have failed to get back to that 39-40 area they were approaching.

Maybe that explains the LD rise. Corbyn fans opting for the more left wing alternative to Starmer's Labour. Lib-Lab crossover circa 2050?

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

It's very noticeable that In almost every poll since the Corbyn trouble, Labour have failed to get back to that 39-40 area they were approaching.

i expect that the Tories will be down to at least 34-35 by later in January though, if not a lot more than that, so Starmer will probably still be ahead even without that.

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

Stocky said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.

The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.

I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".

Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.

Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.

Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.

Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.

You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.

I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.

But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.

You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.

Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.

Smaller is better. Closer to the people.

Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.

It depends upon how you define nationalism.

I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.

I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.

I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.

Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.

They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.

This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.

For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.

You`re not concerned about overall population size?

Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.

Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?

I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.

The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.

But they use more resources.

I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).

That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.

We`re completely overrunning the planet already! 11-12 billion of us. Using and destroying everything.

How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?

It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.

I blame grass. It came up with a cunning plan to breed a species that would plant it everywhere.

Actually we should probably blame bacteria. There are more bacterial cells in human bodies than human cells.

True. There's a bacteria in every human cell too - passed down the maternal line.

I presume you are talking about mitochondria. Hope you have more than one per cell.

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is said that humans should live to about 120. You live a full life, keep your marbles, and at around 120, white haired and bearded (not the ladies!), you get very thoughtful and spiritual for a few days, and then at some point just quietly depart physical existence. That's the ideal.

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

Mexicanpete said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

I am surprised there is no vaccine bounce.

Davey's impressive Covid performance looks like it is paying dividends...or it could just be MoE.

There won't be a vaccine bounce until we see benefits to real life from it.

...that will coincide with an end to furlough. At that moment I am not expecting a bounce, certainly not for the Conservatives.

Flatlander said:

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

Stocky said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.

The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.

I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".

Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.

Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.

Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.

Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.

You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.

I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.

But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.

You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.

Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.

Smaller is better. Closer to the people.

Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.

It depends upon how you define nationalism.

I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.

I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.

I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.

Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.

They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.

This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.

For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.

You`re not concerned about overall population size?

Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.

Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?

I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.

The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.

But they use more resources.

I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).

That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.

We`re completely overrunning the planet already! 11-12 billion of us. Using and destroying everything.

How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?

It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.

I blame grass. It came up with a cunning plan to breed a species that would plant it everywhere.

Actually we should probably blame bacteria. There are more bacterial cells in human bodies than human cells.

True. There's a bacteria in every human cell too - passed down the maternal line.

I presume you are talking about mitochondria. Hope you have more than one per cell.

Yes, that would have been better without the 'a' , sorry. We'd be pretty slow running on just one (depending on which type of cell).

The biologist round here tells me they are likely to have been bacteria which became trapped a very long time ago, although that's only a theory.

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

It's very noticeable that In almost every poll since the Corbyn trouble, Labour have failed to get back to that 39-40 area they were approaching.

i expect that the Tories will be down to at least 34-35 by later in January though, if not a lot more than that, so Starmer will probably still be ahead even without that.

Too early I believe. Conservatives really struggling by Autumn unless we have won back the Falklands again.

Are they hoping M. Macron will invade the Isle of Wight or something?

He’d better not. Serious breach of quarantine, and he’s got no children to act as an excuse.

Luckyguy1983 said:

paulyork64 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is said that humans should live to about 120. You live a full life, keep your marbles, and at around 120, white haired and bearded (not the ladies!), you get very thoughtful and spiritual for a few days, and then at some point just quietly depart physical existence. That's the ideal.

I'd settle for that at 80.

Just get to 80 and keep rolling.

NickPalmer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is said that humans should live to about 120. You live a full life, keep your marbles, and at around 120, white haired and bearded (not the ladies!), you get very thoughtful and spiritual for a few days, and then at some point just quietly depart physical existence. That's the ideal.

Yes, Where do I sign?

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is said that humans should live to about 120. You live a full life, keep your marbles, and at around 120, white haired and bearded (not the ladies!), you get very thoughtful and spiritual for a few days, and then at some point just quietly depart physical existence. That's the ideal.

A truly nice vision. I have always fancied toppling off a Cornish clifftop at a great age but I bet if I were to reach that great age I would change my mind. I'd keep putting it off. I probably wouldn't even risk going to Cornwall.

Peacefully in my sleep in my 90s or later please.

Yes, it'd be a shock to my descendents but I'd rather be in very good health up until then and then not know anything about it.

Flatlander said:

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

Stocky said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stocky said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.

The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.

I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".

Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.

Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.

Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.

Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.

You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.

I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.

But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.

You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.

Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.

Smaller is better. Closer to the people.

Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.

It depends upon how you define nationalism.

I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.

I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.

I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.

Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.

They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.

This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.

For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.

You`re not concerned about overall population size?

Not at the moment no. And it will to some extent be self regulating. Of course at some point in the future it might become an issue but at that point you change policy. Right now in the UK the issue is a demographic timebomb where by we have an aging population and a falling birthrate. Nice if you are independently wealthy but for anyone else it means more likelihood of being poor in old age when the state can no longer afford to look after you.

Yes I get you. And the vast majority of humans will agree. GDP is all. But what about the planet and its other species and habitats?

I would love to see the population stabilise or fall overall in the world. But the only way to make that happen short of something nasty is to increase the wealth of the developing world. It is only at that point that populations stabilise.

The UK is not contributing to the increase in population. This is a function of a developed society and is the same across much of the first world. Stopping people coming here will not save the environment overall. Only making people rich enough and secure enough that they no longer need to have large families will do that.

But they use more resources.

I`ve come to agree with Monbiot`s comment, made over ten years ago, that the only way is some form of global governance run on non-democratic lines and led by scientists, philosophers and naturalists charged with the job of reducing homo sapiens population worldwide and protecting remaining habitats. Again, I realise that I`m in a tiny minority on this. Which is why the planet is doomed for so many non-human species (and eventually humans too).

That's rather pessimistic. On current trends, medium projections are for the global population to hit a peak of about 11-12 billion at around the end of the century before starting to fall again. This is primarily due to the rapidly falling birth rates as countries develop and women gain working and reproductive rights. So long as this process continues (foreign aid helps here), we can reasonably expect not to completely overrun the planet before the pressure starts to ease.

We`re completely overrunning the planet already! 11-12 billion of us. Using and destroying everything.

How can you not be pessimistic about the appallingness of our strain of the species?

It all went wrong from the agricultural revolution, but I accept that mine is a minority view.

I blame grass. It came up with a cunning plan to breed a species that would plant it everywhere.

Actually we should probably blame bacteria. There are more bacterial cells in human bodies than human cells.

True. There's a bacteria in every human cell too - passed down the maternal line.

I presume you are talking about mitochondria. Hope you have more than one per cell.

Yes, that would have been better without the 'a' , sorry. We'd be pretty slow running on just one (depending on which type of cell).

The biologist round here tells me they are likely to have been bacteria which became trapped a very long time ago, although that's only a theory.

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

Mexicanpete said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

I am surprised there is no vaccine bounce.

Davey's impressive Covid performance looks like it is paying dividends...or it could just be MoE.

There won't be a vaccine bounce until we see benefits to real life from it.

...that will coincide with an end to furlough. At that moment I am not expecting a bounce, certainly not for the Conservatives.

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is said that humans should live to about 120. You live a full life, keep your marbles, and at around 120, white haired and bearded (not the ladies!), you get very thoughtful and spiritual for a few days, and then at some point just quietly depart physical existence. That's the ideal.

Yes, Where do I sign?

Sounds good! But in reality we'd work until 105-110 under that regime, wouldn't we?

We couldn't afford to retire still at 68.

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Mexicanpete said:

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

It's very noticeable that In almost every poll since the Corbyn trouble, Labour have failed to get back to that 39-40 area they were approaching.

i expect that the Tories will be down to at least 34-35 by later in January though, if not a lot more than that, so Starmer will probably still be ahead even without that.

Too early I believe. Conservatives really struggling by Autumn unless we have won back the Falklands again.

Are they hoping M. Macron will invade the Isle of Wight or something?

He’d better not. Serious breach of quarantine, and he’s got no children to act as an excuse.

I understand the first, but what have les enfants got to do with it? Unless it's the dinosaurs or Shanklin funfair or something.

guybrush said:

https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1339916755515400193

Casino_Royale said:

Interesting.
I'm planning an article on why Labour may never win again.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Casino_Royale said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

WhisperingOracle said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1339961179851075586

It's very noticeable that In almost every poll since the Corbyn trouble, Labour have failed to get back to that 39-40 area they were approaching.

i expect that the Tories will be down to at least 34-35 by later in January though, if not a lot more than that, so Starmer will probably still be ahead even without that.

Arguably their base splinters back to the 2010-2015 support base if the former UKIP lot go back to not voting, or voting Labour or BXP. A few percent still to come from those that swapped from Labour to Tory as well.

All in all, I think Labour will lead between 5-10 points in a few polls next year perhaps

Interesting.

I'm planning an article on why Labour may never win again.

You're totally impartial of course

Maybe I should write an article about why the Tories will lose in 2024? It would be equally interesting, although perhaps just as useless (depending on point of view)

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

Interesting.
I'm planning an article on why Labour may never win again.

Yes, I remember all the commentators saying in the summer of 1992 the Conservatives were the natural party of Government and Labour the natural party of Opposition.

One Telegraph piece envisaged John Major still being PM in 2001 having won his third General Election.

Remind me what happened in 1997?

TheScreamingEagles said:

guybrush said:

https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1339916755515400193

Further proof that the Telegraph has become a comic and is only useful as emergency bog roll.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

guybrush said:

https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1339916755515400193

Further proof that the Telegraph has become a comic and is only useful as emergency bog roll.

I am afraid you are fighting a losing battle here old chap. No lesser person than the Director himself John McTiernan has now confirmed what all sensible people knew all along.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/die-hard-christmas-movie-director-b1775480.html

williamglenn said:

Fish update:

https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1339826925141897218?s=21

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

guybrush said:

https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1339916755515400193

Further proof that the Telegraph has become a comic and is only useful as emergency bog roll.

I am afraid you are fighting a losing battle here old chap. No lesser person than the Director himself John McTiernan has now confirmed what all sensible people knew all along.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/die-hard-christmas-movie-director-b1775480.html

He's a convicted perjurer, his views can be discarded.

Stuartinromford said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1339989593828024321?s=21

Tactically, that's probably cunning... I wonder how much of the current faff is about running down the clock, not on Barnier, but on Baker et al.

But it's no way to run a country.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

guybrush said:

https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1339916755515400193

Also the view of Mark Kermode. Even if Willis himself disagrees. But then he is just an actor.

I have never watched Die Hard and not been in a Cinema for more than 40 years

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

guybrush said:

https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1339916755515400193

Also the view of Mark Kermode. Even if Willis himself disagrees. But then he is just an actor.

I have never watched Die Hard and not been in a Cinema for more than 40 years

rcs1000 said:

stodge said:

Casino_Royale said:

Interesting.
I'm planning an article on why Labour may never win again.

Yes, I remember all the commentators saying in the summer of 1992 the Conservatives were the natural party of Government and Labour the natural party of Opposition.

One Telegraph piece envisaged John Major still being PM in 2001 having won his third General Election.

Remind me what happened in 1997?

What happened in 1997?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

guybrush said:

https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1339916755515400193

Further proof that the Telegraph has become a comic and is only useful as emergency bog roll.

I am afraid you are fighting a losing battle here old chap. No lesser person than the Director himself John McTiernan has now confirmed what all sensible people knew all along.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/die-hard-christmas-movie-director-b1775480.html

He's a convicted perjurer, his views can be discarded.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is said that humans should live to about 120. You live a full life, keep your marbles, and at around 120, white haired and bearded (not the ladies!), you get very thoughtful and spiritual for a few days, and then at some point just quietly depart physical existence. That's the ideal.

A truly nice vision. I have always fancied toppling off a Cornish clifftop at a great age but I bet if I were to reach that great age I would change my mind. I'd keep putting it off. I probably wouldn't even risk going to Cornwall.

Peacefully in my sleep in my 90s or later please.

Yes, it'd be a shock to my descendents but I'd rather be in very good health up until then and then not know anything about it.

I want to die on my 100th birthday and I want my wife to be so upset that she cancels her 21st birthday party as a mark of respect.