The Great Graduate Divide: Why the Tories might fare better with Sunak – politicalbetting.com

isam said:

What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?

Box Office Gold!

“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?

Farage: 145.1k
BBC News: 113.1k
Sky News: 29.1k
Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”

https://order-order.com/2021/08/06/exclusive-farage-beat-sky-and-bbcs-views-combined-last-night/

Sky News ratings are embarrassingly low. There really are total nobodies on YouTube who get more views for their takes on the days events.

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much.

With gunpowder you could revolutionise mining?

felix said:

FPT:
Keir just cannot get a break:

" Yesterday’s by-election saw the SNP win at stage five after receiving 42.5% of first-preference votes, up 1.7 points on the 2017 poll.

The Tories came second with 1085 votes, 24.4% of the overall total – with their support also up 2.4 points.

Meanwhile Labour received 969 votes, 21.8% of the overall share and a decrease of 9.1 points on the 2017 local council election.

The Scottish Greens were up 4 points with 7.6% of the vote, and the LibDems received 2.7% of the vote, no change on the previous election. "

‘Something wrong with our bloody Unionist tactical voters today’

FrancisUrquhart said:

isam said:

What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?

Box Office Gold!

“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?

Farage: 145.1k
BBC News: 113.1k
Sky News: 29.1k
Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”

https://order-order.com/2021/08/06/exclusive-farage-beat-sky-and-bbcs-views-combined-last-night/

Sky News ratings are embarrassingly low. There really are total nobodies on YouTube who get more views for their takes on the days events.

I rarely watch Sky these days and certainly not when Burley is on

Italians again. They're really trying my patience.

FrancisUrquhart said:

isam said:

What do you get when you cross Nigel Farage w Peter Hitchens?

Box Office Gold!

“Not content with merely beating his taxpayer-funded rival, last night Farage’s GB News show saw his highest ratings yet – averaging 145.1 thousand viewers. How does this compare?

Farage: 145.1k
BBC News: 113.1k
Sky News: 29.1k
Nigel beat the BBC and Sky combined last night by three thousand viers and peaked at 157,000. Boom.”

https://order-order.com/2021/08/06/exclusive-farage-beat-sky-and-bbcs-views-combined-last-night/

Sky News ratings are embarrassingly low. There really are total nobodies on YouTube who get more views for their takes on the days events.

Didn't watch it. What did Hitchens and Farage say? Was it enlightening?

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kamski said:

SandyRentool said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Stephen Bush of the Staggers's daily email has been commenting on the contrast re Mrs T and Mr J - an extract:

"If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers [...]

Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.

But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today."

But its not true.

We don't need radical change in how we live. We need radical change in our technologies we use.

We need to switch from petrol cars to electric cars; we do not need to abandon driving.
We need to switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity; we do not need to stop using electricity.
We need to switch from jet oil to clean jet zero aircraft; we do not need to stop flying.

The hairshirt environmentalists are wrong. Science and technology are the solution, not economic vandalism. Something that both Thatcher and Johnson could both equally grasp.

He precedes that with

"All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed)."

What a ridiculous statement: it would be trivial for the UK (if it were only the UK) to replace all vehicles with electric ones by 2030. In a normal year, 2.3-2.4m cars are sold in the UK, compared to a global electric car market of around 3.5 million units (excluding PHEV) this year.

Not only that, but the number of EVs sold is increasing by 40+% per year. Now, sure, that might slow. But the share of the market that is EV/PHEV is going in exactly one direction. And by the early 2030s - irrespective of government action - the majority of cars sold are going to be EV/PHEV.

You are forgetting that two groups don't want this - big oil (and their fan club) and the watermelon Greens

Indeed, they have a massive aversion to the concept of private transport, whether it’s EV or IC powered.

A traffic jam made up of EVs is still a traffic jam.

The free-market fundamentalists who keep telling everyone to keep sticking their heads further in the sand are the worst criminals of all.

A traffic jam is not the end of the world. Though certainly building more and better roads can help ameliorate traffic issues.

But personal transport is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world. Zealots aren't going to convince people to give up on private transportation.

It isn't an invention of the modern world.

You really aren't going to be happy until every square inch of the world's surface is under concrete or tarmac, are you?

"Zealots" is interesting. Same mindset as we see with Covid, that nature is essentially benign, all problems are self-limiting, and everybody suggesting they might not be is a zealot, fanatic, zerocovidian or whatever. You don't seem to appreciate that we have turned all the controls up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the consequence of that is that everything is going to blow at some stage. Climate just got there first; if we reduced global temperatures by 3 degrees C tomorrow and kept them there we are still contending with resource depletion, soil depletion, pollution, overpopulation, a fresh water crisis and just running out of room.

Why I want every inch of the world's surface under tarmac? Do you have any clue what percentage of the world's surface is under tarmac as it stands? Its miniscule. Just as the proportion of the UK under tarmac as it stands is miniscule. We're talking fractions of a percentage point difference in outlook.

Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.

As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.

You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.

Japan reports 15,645 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record

TheScreamingEagles said:

If England win this test match I'll stop talking about my legendary modesty for the rest of the year.

Its the hope that kills you.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If England win this test match I'll stop talking about my legendary modesty for the rest of the year.

Its the hope that kills you.

I'll claim that wicket.

232 for 8

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

Theres a great book called The Knowledge which is one of a number of popular science books to take on this sort of concept, albeit for the post apocalypse. The premise being we've learned a lot and could shortcut a lot of the ponderous development process, from mining, to agriculture to chemistry, since many cultures had the capability to be more effective but not the knowledge.

You can be pretty advanced pretty quickly.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If England win this test match I'll stop talking about my legendary modesty for the rest of the year.

And rescind my exile to ConHome?

England are losing this match by an innings.

Another drop.

Bring back the birch for this England team.

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

That's a really interesting question. The best idea that I can come up with is using trigonometry to improve the accuracy of maps, although there's an element of needing accurate measurement devices with that too.

I've always thought that maps were surprisingly poor until relatively recently.

kle4 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

Theres a great book called The Knowledge which is one of a number of popular science books to take on this sort of concept, albeit for the post apocalypse. The premise being we've learned a lot and could shortcut a lot of the ponderous development process, from mining, to agriculture to chemistry, since many cultures had the capability to be more effective but not the knowledge.

You can be pretty advanced pretty quickly.

There's a Dara O Briain stand-up routine on this premise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

What about the condom?

TheScreamingEagles said:

The worst thing about cricket as a fan.

When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.

And catches being dropped

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Media out of touch with public sentiment again...who could have guessed.

Incidentally for your information @IshmaelZ have you ever travelled? Have you ever been to London, let alone Johannesberg? The population density in Johannesberg is about half of that in Greater London.

Which city do you think you'd rather live in? Especially as a poorer resident of that city, which would be better? The more densely populated but better developed London, or the less developed but less densely populated Johannesberg?

That you think the issue with places like Johannesberg is one of overpopulation instead of underdevelopment really betrays your complete and utter ignorance on the subject matter.

Maybe you'd rather see Africans subject to imperialistic population controls to reduce their breeding, despite them being less densely populated than we are, rather than see some actual development as a solution?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If England win this test match I'll stop talking about my legendary modesty for the rest of the year.

And rescind my exile to ConHome?

England are losing this match by an innings.

£100 says they don’t!
Site donation.

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

What about the condom?

I think I'd probably go with the Roulette table.

The day after GBTV tried to get some Rangers mad rando on to say how everyone, most of all the SNP, hates Rangers. Needless to say the link failed.

StuartDickson said:

LostPassword said:

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

That's a really interesting question. The best idea that I can come up with is using trigonometry to improve the accuracy of maps, although there's an element of needing accurate measurement devices with that too.

I've always thought that maps were surprisingly poor until relatively recently.

If we could help the indigenous peoples of the Americas to kill the initial explorers, so that everyone sailing west from Europe simply “disappeared”, what would be the simplest way to do it? Teach them military tactics and organisation, or give them a key technology?

I could furnish them with pretty good world maps, but would that really help them much?

Maps are only useful the people who have the power to use them - i.e. possessing power to project over large (mapped) distances. These are also the people who would be able to furnish you with a life of relative luxury in exchange - the context of the question given.

In your scenario, sadly I think the main thing to teach the indigenous peoples would be cynicism. My recollection is that they were naively welcoming, which did not end well for them.

So, fire arrows and burn the ships as soon as sighted would be the way to go.

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Do Britons support or oppose new measures aimed at tackling illegal immigration, including life sentences for people traffickers & the criminalisation of those who facilitate the entry of asylum seekers into the UK?

Support: 67%
Neither: 15%
Oppose: 10%




https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1423649127464833034?s=20

It's a bit like Covid polling, the specifics of the question less vital than if it's a proxy for ' I am serious about x'

Though its exceptionally unusual to see cross-party support for such a policy when its named as a government policy.

That Patel is named you'd think would lead to more opposition than support from Labour and Lib Dem voters. But more strongly support the proposal than oppose it at all for both of the opposition parties voters.

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

What about the condom?

I think I'd probably go with the Roulette table.

Now I'm imagining RCS explaining Credit Default Swaps to John Law....

Public Health England's vaccine surveillance report has some updated figures on the impact of the country's jab rollout on the population:

Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 96.2% of the adult population now have antibodies to Covid-19 from either infection or vaccination

DougSeal said:

98 viewers...

But they will still be on BBC News and Sky morning, noon and night....on again this morning.

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

I think I could probably make a pretty crappy printing press, but the fate of Gutenberg doesn't encourage me that I could make a fortune from it: it left him bankrupt. He was eventually given a stipend by the Archbishop for his work at 65, 3 years before he died, as well as 2000 litres of wine - I'm surprised he lasted 3 years

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

.

BlancheLivermore said:

IshmaelZ said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Some dispute on stirrups, I'd heard it was around 4th century AD China, although it's not guaranteed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#China_and_Korea

Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.

Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.

They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.

Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.

Interesting thought experiment:

If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.

I think I could probably make a pretty crappy printing press, but the fate of Gutenberg doesn't encourage me that I could make a fortune from it: it left him bankrupt. He was eventually given a stipend by the Archbishop for his work at 65, 3 years before he died, as well as 2000 litres of wine - I'm surprised he lasted 3 years

Korea had movable metal type before anyone.
Didn't do them much good.

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

Not at all...the media has been filled with stories that there is a lack of capacity due to void usually filled with immigrant labour. The public have been asked if they think the amount of immigration is enough or not and they quite clearly stated in this poll that they don't want the void to be filled with even higher levels of immigration.

If that means problems or higher prices due to higher wages to employ UK nationals that's a different question.

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kamski said:

SandyRentool said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Stephen Bush of the Staggers's daily email has been commenting on the contrast re Mrs T and Mr J - an extract:

"If you want to actually tackle the climate crisis, you have to be willing to do big and radical things that upset people, and that do, in the short term at least, create some losers [...]

Our Prime Minister is very far from being willing to level with the public about that (to 'tell the truth', as Extinction Rebellion puts it) and further still from being willing to tell the public that this might involve some difficult or radical changes to how we live. Again, that is very far from how Margaret Thatcher approached any issue, including climate change.

But the biggest problem we face, and the one our politicians should be angriest about, isn't that Boris Johnson makes jokes about British mining. It's that it is frankly impossible to imagine him doing something as big or as significant in the fight to tackle the climate crisis today."

But its not true.

We don't need radical change in how we live. We need radical change in our technologies we use.

We need to switch from petrol cars to electric cars; we do not need to abandon driving.
We need to switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity; we do not need to stop using electricity.
We need to switch from jet oil to clean jet zero aircraft; we do not need to stop flying.

The hairshirt environmentalists are wrong. Science and technology are the solution, not economic vandalism. Something that both Thatcher and Johnson could both equally grasp.

He precedes that with

"All too often, Johnson's climate change strategy is essentially 'everyone should have their own electric car': a solution that is neither possible (there aren't enough rare earth materials in the world to replace every car currently in use in the UK) nor adequate (cars don't just produce emissions when they are driven, but also when they are constructed)."

What a ridiculous statement: it would be trivial for the UK (if it were only the UK) to replace all vehicles with electric ones by 2030. In a normal year, 2.3-2.4m cars are sold in the UK, compared to a global electric car market of around 3.5 million units (excluding PHEV) this year.

Not only that, but the number of EVs sold is increasing by 40+% per year. Now, sure, that might slow. But the share of the market that is EV/PHEV is going in exactly one direction. And by the early 2030s - irrespective of government action - the majority of cars sold are going to be EV/PHEV.

You are forgetting that two groups don't want this - big oil (and their fan club) and the watermelon Greens

Indeed, they have a massive aversion to the concept of private transport, whether it’s EV or IC powered.

A traffic jam made up of EVs is still a traffic jam.

The free-market fundamentalists who keep telling everyone to keep sticking their heads further in the sand are the worst criminals of all.

A traffic jam is not the end of the world. Though certainly building more and better roads can help ameliorate traffic issues.

But personal transport is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world. Zealots aren't going to convince people to give up on private transportation.

It isn't an invention of the modern world.

You really aren't going to be happy until every square inch of the world's surface is under concrete or tarmac, are you?

"Zealots" is interesting. Same mindset as we see with Covid, that nature is essentially benign, all problems are self-limiting, and everybody suggesting they might not be is a zealot, fanatic, zerocovidian or whatever. You don't seem to appreciate that we have turned all the controls up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the consequence of that is that everything is going to blow at some stage. Climate just got there first; if we reduced global temperatures by 3 degrees C tomorrow and kept them there we are still contending with resource depletion, soil depletion, pollution, overpopulation, a fresh water crisis and just running out of room.

Why I want every inch of the world's surface under tarmac? Do you have any clue what percentage of the world's surface is under tarmac as it stands? Its miniscule. Just as the proportion of the UK under tarmac as it stands is miniscule. We're talking fractions of a percentage point difference in outlook.

Everything is not going to "blow". Problems arise, we solve them. Human ingenuity works. Resource depletion leads to us finding ways to be more efficient or use alternative resources, or find more resources. We have plenty of room, we've barely scratched the surface of the planet.

As for so-called overpopulation - people have been making completely discredited Malthusian projections of doom since the 18th century. The reality is that declining population ratios leading to a higher retireee to worker ratio is a bigger concern both domestically and globally than overpopulation.

You're entirely right to link hairshirt zealots with zerocovidian fanatics. They may have zeal and a superficial semblence of intelligence but scratch the surface and its braindead religious fantasies twisting the world to meet their objectives.

"so-called overpopulation:" Have you ever left the first world? Seen how many people live, and how they live, in say Cairo or Calcutta or Johannesburg? You are going to have to sacrifice either your lovely aspiration that everybody should live in a lovely detached house with a lovely garden and drive about in their own lovely car, because that would be lovely, or the ludicrous claim that the world is not overpopulated.

And what could be sillier than a context-free "only x percent" argument? Take this pill, it's only 0.1% LSD; drink this drink, only 1% cyanide; eat this sandwich, only 2% dogshit?

Yes I have. The problem in those countries is a lack of development, its not overpopulation.

Hairshirt bollocks trying to turn our back on development is feeding the problem, it is not the solution.

South Africa's population density is about a tenth of England's.

Is having a tenth of our population per square kilometre leaving them ten times better off than we are? Or is it development that matters not the myth of overpopulation?

Hahahahaha. No deserts there, thank goodness. And if there were, tarmac the fuckers. They'll be fine, because percentages.

There are some incredibly densely populated places that somehow manage to provide decent living space to lots of people.

For example, Monaco has a population of 38,000 and some very nice parks, beaches, restaurants and nightclubs in just one square mile.

At that population density, you could fit billions of people into England alone. (Not recommending it, but it could be done.)

tlg86 said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.

Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

If England win this test match I'll stop talking about my legendary modesty for the rest of the year.

And rescind my exile to ConHome?

England are losing this match by an innings.

£100 says they don’t!
Site donation.

Maybe not.

If England don't lose this by an innings I'll stop calling myself working class for the rest of 2021.

15 from that over is unforgivable at this level.

Letting #7 get 50 is the bigger sin though.

Sandpit said:

15 from that over is unforgivable at this level.

Letting #7 get 50 is the bigger sin though.

Bumrah added about 30% to his total 21-test career runs in 3 balls

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

One minute after your post, BBC Olympics live blog posted

"Global Day 11 highlights
There's been plenty going on away from Great Britain's ever-expanding medal haul too.

Joseph Cheptegei and Shaunae Miller-Uibo were dominant in claiming men's 5,000m and women's 400m gold medals.

And there was a world record for Aleksandra Miroslaw in everyone's new favourite sport, speed climbing. Gladiators, ready!"

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.