Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 6 in General
imageThe Great Graduate Divide: Why the Tories might fare better with Sunak – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863
    test
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863
    edited August 6

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,726
    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. "
  • FossFoss Posts: 437
    IshmaelZ 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?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,398
    FPT: Mr. Divvie, I believe modern Albania could be Epirus, Macedon, or Illyria. Not certain, though.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,264
    edited August 6
    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’
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    Fastest running race of the Olympics coming up…
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,329

    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
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    Sandpit said:

    Fastest running race of the Olympics coming up…

    And no USA....as embarrassing as Sky News audience figures.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,726

    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 tactical voters today’
    It was actually a Labour defence although I think they were second last time. Now third - just on the podium - oops nope, not the Olympics!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,744
    Italy are having quite the summer.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863
    Foss said:

    IshmaelZ 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?
    See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).

    I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    VAR incoming again....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    Italians again. They're really trying my patience.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    Silver if that first change was good.

    Jamaica nowhere without Bolt!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,205

    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?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,959
    edited August 6

    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?
    They want us to be more French, more like de Gaulle.

    https://twitter.com/btharris93/status/1423635927524597767

    What ghastly traitors these people are.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    edited August 6
    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx 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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,264
    edited August 6
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foss said:

    IshmaelZ 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?
    See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).

    I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
    If you could take Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian with you, there’s a decent description of how to home make gunpowder when the heroes (sic) are beleaguered on some God forsaken Mexican rock.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    Japan reports 15,645 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record
  • If England win this test match I'll stop talking about my legendary modesty for the rest of the year.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004

    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? ;)
  • 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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519

    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?
    They want us to be more French, more like de Gaulle.

    https://twitter.com/btharris93/status/1423635927524597767

    What ghastly traitors these people are.
    We need another outing for Lozza Fox's uncle then. But on target this time.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,329
    232 for 8
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573

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

    Eight down.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited August 6
    IshmaelZ 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.
  • FossFoss Posts: 437
    IshmaelZ said:

    Foss said:

    IshmaelZ 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?
    See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).

    I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
    I *think* I remember enough to sketch out the design of a crude steam engine. And, of course, if you go further there is always the windmill.
  • Sandpit 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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    So close to gold! Damn it.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,368
    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. "

    Not Keir’s fault. It’s Anas’s fault.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    Tomorrow’s front page picture:

  • Another drop.

    Bring back the birch for this England team.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,384
    It would have been gold for Britain in the 3x100+99m.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863
    edited August 6

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx 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?
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,068
    Sandpit said:

    Tomorrow’s front page picture:

    That's the thing though isn't it. Neither team got gold. should be a combo of KennyArchibald and French who all bossed their events.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,288
    IshmaelZ 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.
  • The worst thing about cricket as a fan.

    When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foss said:

    IshmaelZ 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?
    See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).

    I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
    If you could take Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian with you, there’s a decent description of how to home make gunpowder when the heroes (sic) are beleaguered on some God forsaken Mexican rock.
    That is vaguely coming back to me: it involves a lot of piss, I think?

    What a film that book would make (but I think it's unfilmable).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx 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?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,760
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ 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
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863

    The worst thing about cricket as a fan.

    When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.

    I have a vague recollection of being at Old Trafford in the 80s and Michael Holding with a broken arm batting at no 10 and hitting a four one-armed and left-handed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    edited August 6
    IshmaelZ 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?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,329
    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%
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,329

    The worst thing about cricket as a fan.

    When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.

    And catches being dropped
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217

    The CricViz Analyst
    @cricvizanalyst
    ·
    5m
    This is the fifth time this year that England have dropped 3+ catches in an innings. #ENGvIND
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217

    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.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx 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.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,368

    IshmaelZ 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?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,863
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ 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?
    Pigskin? Cowhide? Double stitched?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    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?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    edited August 6

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

    Could you offer an extension till the end of 2023 as a demininmus?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    edited August 6

    Sandpit 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.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,041
    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
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,630
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ 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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    IshmaelZ 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.
    Its astonishing that some ancient ones are even close.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,264
    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.


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    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'
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,288

    IshmaelZ 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.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,557
    edited August 6
    IshmaelZ said:

    The worst thing about cricket as a fan.

    When the opposition tailenders started smashing it to all parts.

    I have a vague recollection of being at Old Trafford in the 80s and Michael Holding with a broken arm batting at no 10 and hitting a four one-armed and left-handed.
    That was Malcolm Marshall I think
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    kle4 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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,638
    98 viewers...


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,291
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ 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....
  • isamisam Posts: 38,557

    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

    Priti Landslide!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    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
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ 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?
    Pigskin? Cowhide? Double stitched?
    Ah, see what you mean. No, fairly low take-up, I'd have thought. Needs a prior invention, I suppose, doesn't it. Back to the drawing board.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    DougSeal said:

    98 viewers...


    But they will still be on BBC News and Sky morning, noon and night....on again this morning.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,264
    edited August 6
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Foss said:

    IshmaelZ 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?
    See edit: I could have a stab at charcoal, but wouldn't have a clue about sulphur or saltpetre. But, yes, if you were in a part of the world with existing mines (because I wouldn't know where to start a new one).

    I could probably beat Carter to Tut's tomb, mind you, if I could get to Luxor.
    If you could take Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian with you, there’s a decent description of how to home make gunpowder when the heroes (sic) are beleaguered on some God forsaken Mexican rock.
    That is vaguely coming back to me: it involves a lot of piss, I think?

    What a film that book would make (but I think it's unfilmable).
    Piss indeed.

    Probably filmable but would end up a deformed monster 3 years over schedule and 2 times over budget.
    Brando reprising Kurtz was always my prime candidate for the judge, so down a man already.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 1,026
    IshmaelZ 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
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573

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

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

    Great figure.

    Though probably self-selection bias there. Those who are afraid of needles are probably more likely refusing the vaccine and less likely to be giving blood.

    PS Nine Down.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,946
    edited August 6

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    Howzat!!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,130
    .

    IshmaelZ 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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,744
    Roger 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.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,368

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ooooft.

    Leaving aside the Mirror’s feeble attempt at a pun, how’s this for brutal sarcasm about the failures of SAGE?

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2021/07/09/jack-lesgrins-week-put-seven-year-olds-not-experts-in-charge-of-covid-response-seriously/

    You feel they were trying to mine an exhausted seam of humour?
    I think they spoil tip by trying to be funny.
    Just trying to slag off Johnson.
    Bingo on the puns. (Don't know if southrons will spot both mine.)

    More seriously: has anyone on PB or elsewhere noted that it's not just a matter of 1980s history. Mr Johnson has just given a rather brilliant impression of enunciating the equation:

    climate change policy = brilliant excuse for the Tories to screw the working classes and their communities, what japes!

    Which is the last thing we all need at the moment, especially with him fronting COP26 - in Scotland, too.
    COP26 may be something of a bogey in any case.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1422945875186311170?s=21
    - “Can only be a matter of time before Nicola Sturgeon suddenly and miraculously receives an invite so that he can pass the blame on to her.”

    And as if by magic:

    ‘Boris Johnson offers role to Nicola Sturgeon in COP26’

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/boris-johnson-offers-role-to-nicola-sturgeon-in-cop26-3335166
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    On Sunak, the only question the Tory leadership seems to care about these days is 'what does the red wall think?'
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    edited August 6
    Roger 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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    Roger 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.
    Even if you are an employer, you're still having to guess.

    If as an employer you're struggling to recruit is that because of low immigration? Or is it because you're a bad employer, offering poor wages, poor terms of employment and who treats staff badly so has poor staff retention?

    If as an employer you're not struggling to recruit is that because immigration is appropriate or too high? Or is it because you're a good employer.

    And maybe other sectors are different to your own.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,630
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx 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.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,130
    @Morris_Dancer would probably concentrate on advising Hannibal on which mistakes to avoid...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    edited August 6
    tlg86 said:

    Roger 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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,755
    DougSeal said:

    98 viewers...

    How many of them are members?
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit 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.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Alistair's Covid forecast for today
    <26,000 Brilliant
    <28,000 Good
    <30,000 Fine
    >30,000 Half baked theory is in full swing
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,004
    15 from that over is unforgivable at this level.

    Letting #7 get 50 is the bigger sin though.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,217
    edited August 6
    Sandpit said:

    15 from that over is unforgivable at this level.

    Letting #7 get 50 is the bigger sin though.

    England have always struggled to rattle through tailenders. Jimmy banana bending deliveries are too good for them....I remember facing Mustaq Ahmed and the first over he bowled to me I played and missed every ball as it spun too much for my limited ability.

    This is where I imagine a Chris Jordon type player would be excellent with his fast direct yorkers
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,368
    Boris Johnson refuses to apologise for joke about Thatcher closing coal mines

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-thatcher-coal-mines-b1898125.html?amp
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    tlg86 said:

    Roger 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.
    Except that would probably apply to the majority of questions, making asking them pointless.

    Whether or not the public know enough to answer meaningfully the fact is they will have an opinion and that will influence their political representatives, who also may not really know enough.

    So we need to know what people think is the answer, and if the public are just plain wrong you need leaders of strength to explain that.

    Of course, instead they tend to just pretend the public supports a position even if they dont instead, as it's easier.

    Its only things like the death penalty that politicians dont react to public opinion.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 1,026
    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
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    edited August 6
    kle4 said:

    On Sunak, the only question the Tory leadership seems to care about these days is 'what does the red wall think?'

    And the Labour leadership. The Red Wall is super powerful at the moment through the vagaries of our FPTP electoral politics. It is almost - but not really - like a mighty Roman Emperor, all of our fates resting upon whether its quivering thumb goes up or down.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,946
    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
  • isamisam Posts: 38,557
    ...

    Boris Johnson refuses to apologise for joke about Thatcher closing coal mines

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-thatcher-coal-mines-b1898125.html?amp

    His critics falling over themselves to talk about how they hate him, whilst his fans laugh and say "Boris being Boris"

    How gutted must he be?!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,329
    Roger 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
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,573
    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

    Aww diddums. Is it not hating on Britain enough for your taste?

    You'd rather they not show the competitions our athletes are competing in?
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 1,026
    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!"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    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

    Every 4 years people complain that national coverage focuses too much on the nation in question. Of course it does.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,264

    Roger 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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,329
    These tail enders are causing problems but compounded by England's fielding
This discussion has been closed.