Howdy, Stranger!

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

DeSantis edges Trump out to become new WH2024 favourite – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365
    edited June 28
    Dura_Ace said:

    To be honest, if the UK can't permanently deploy at least one fully equipped warfighting division (generally accepted to be the smallest formation that comprises a balanced force of all the arms, logistics and services needed for the independent conduct of operations - and that's about 12-15k in size) to Europe on roulement then we may as well not bother having an army. Just stick to a militia, ceremonial forces and some marines instead.

    It's tempting to say that we're better off concentrating our resources on the Navy, but I don't think manning levels are that much better in the other services.
    The army is actually quite good on troop levels compared to recent travails. It's vehicles where they are incredibly fucked.

    Can't sustain a single regiment of Challenger 2 or AS90.
    Warrior CSP - cancelled.
    Ajax - not before 2025 if at all.
    Boxer - 2024 at best.
    Challenger 3 - 2028 in very small numbers
    ISD for any 155mm artillery replacement is strictly in the realms of imagination

    It's basically 35 years of continuing and sustained inability to buy an armoured vehicle culminating to negate it as a mobile fighting force.
    Not a problem which couldn't be solved with an increased budget and a sense of urgency, though.

    Cancel Ajax, as it's clearly an insatiable money pit, and buy something like the Korean K21 upgrade or the German Lynx - whoever gives us the best co-production deal (prob. the Koreans).

    Ditto the 155mm replacement (we're already looking at the Hanwa chassis).

    Get rid of our MBTs completely - we're almost certainly never going to use them, and if we're absolutely desperate to contribute to NATO efforts, pay towards a squadron of Leopards to be crewed by us, somewhere on the continent. Would keep our tankers happy, and save a fortune.

    Buy a crapload of missiles, both short and medium range.

    Fag packet stuff, and probably wrong in places, but negotiating co-production deals for stuff that works would probably save a lot of cash, and provide decent work for domestic industry.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    Pulpstar said:

    London data interesting. Looks like the poshest parts of inner London have experienced population decline.

    An increase in overseas buyers not there on census day, or Brits rich enough to have buggered off somewhere with few Covid restrictions for several months?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    dixiedean said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Both England and Wales populations are down on the 2020 estimates.
    The tin-foil brigade will be saying the Covid deaths were far more than admitted.....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,311
    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Hey I have a bet with him too. In March or so last year he offered 3/1 Starmer PM after next GE and I did £100 to his £300.

    That looks great for me now so I'm keen we still have a comms line to him!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    So GOP self-interest is to not pick Trump. American self-interest too, since he'd be a threat to its democracy, could knock that reeling beast out for the count.

    Will he only run for the nomination if it looks in the bag, I wonder? Or is that self-fulfilling in that IF he runs, DeSantis won't?
    At some point in the next few months, DeSantis and Trump are going to have to sit down and work out their strategy. Which definitely isn’t to knock lumps out of each other during the primary season.

    One will run and the other will endorse, or perhaps they will run together for the first half-dozen primaries and make the call then?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    35C in Kotor, and still heading north. Probably 40C here in the limestone plazas of the Old Town. I do like hot sun but this is nearing the edge of my comfort zone
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    So GOP self-interest is to not pick Trump. American self-interest too, since he'd be a threat to its democracy, could knock that reeling beast out for the count.

    Will he only run for the nomination if it looks in the bag, I wonder? Or is that self-fulfilling in that IF he runs, DeSantis won't?
    Like it or not, Trump has a massive following in America and his endorsement is generally prized in primaries. There are exceptions but his endorsements tend to win.

    If Trump fails to endorse any Presidential candidate chosen by the Republicans, that candidate is DOA, electorally. IF he isn't the candidate, he's the kingmaker.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    Pulpstar said:

    London data interesting. Looks like the poshest parts of inner London have experienced population decline.

    A lot of empty investment property I would guess. Healthy population growth south of the river, where people actually want to live!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,771
    Cilic and Berrettini out with COVID. Would they seriously cancel a final if someone had COVID? Golf seems to have stopped caring.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270
    Starmer considers scrapping proposed tax rise on the top 5% if Labour win the next general election and also scrapping plans to abolish tuition fees

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1541728809602498560?s=20&t=WjC_lppMBT6_wYXJllQfig
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (22-23 Jun)

    Con: 34% (+1 from 15-16 Jun)
    Lab: 39% (n/c)
    Lib Dem: 9% (-1)
    Green: 8% (+2)
    SNP: 4% (n/c)
    Reform UK: 4% (n/c)

    https://t.co/i5k22gakF9 https://t.co/lx1Eaff3Kv

    Best PM 33 to 28 Starmer leads
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    Dura_Ace said:

    eristdoof said:



    It is valid to criticise the German government for being painfully slow at delivering promised arms to Ukraine, but to equate that with "appeasing Putin" is crazy.

    GAF have a regular A310 medevac flight out of Rzeszow to take Ukrainian casualties to hospital in Germany. A gesture that Johnson has failed to match.

    Germany is doing more than the UK at this point with armour and artillery. Apart from talking a good game, obviously.
    We supplied them with kit early on that kept Ukraine in the game. Germany very obviously didn't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now 16 dead and 59 wounded, in the Russian missile attack on a shopping mall in Ukraine yesterday.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/28/ukraine-news-russia-war-invasion-latest-nato-grain-kremenchuk/

    NATO calling up an extra 250,000 troops(!) to a state of readiness, as they meet today following the G7. UK defence minister suggesting that 2% military spending target should move up to 2.5%.

    Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it. We need to get to the point where NATO conventional means are strong enough that there would be no purpose in Russia tanks crossing the Lithuanian border because they’d be turned to scrap within seconds.

    As we’re seeing now, it’s far harder to displace an army that’s already mounted an invasion than it is to deter the invasion to begin with.
    "Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it."

    Which is why the west's poor response to previous Russian actions are so notable. We gave Putin the indication that he could do whatever he wanted, and we would just chuck a few sanctions at him, tut, and then get on with the new world he had created.

    A worry is that he might still believe that is the case; that we will fold. A big worry is that we will.
    I don't think there is any danger whatsoever of us "folding". The biggest danger is that Putin is put in a position in which he sees no alternative to the use of nuclear weapons. That is why, alongside the full military resistance of the West, it is just as important to maintain dialogue exploring ways to end the war. Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back.
    I can't see Putin using nuclear weapons over Ukraine: the danger point for that has long past. But if he does use them over Ukraine, then he's a madman who would use them for *any* excuse.

    And of course it's important to maintain dialogue: and dialogue has been, and will be, happening - though it's difficult when you've got Putin threatening neighbouring countries in speeches, and Lavrov saying some fairly incredible things.

    "Otherwise it seems pretty much nailed on that the battlefield nukes will come out as the Russian armies are driven back"

    This just sounds like another "We must give the Russians what they want coz, you know, nukes." argument. Another version of the 'we must allow them to save face' rubbish.

    A question for you: if our fear of Russian nukes makes us cede territory to Russia, what makes you think Putin won't think "That worked!" and threaten their use over the rest of Ukraine; Estonia, Lithuania etc?
    Are you saying the Russian nuclear deterrent should not deter Ukraine or Nato, and if so, whither the British nuclear deterrent?
    It should deter Ukraine or NATO from launching an unprovoked attack on Russia.

    They haven't done so. Russia started the war.
    That is to misunderstand the theory of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear missiles were no-one's first resort, which is why we, Nato, Russia and everyone else has conventional forces.

    It is odd that advocates of Britain's nuclear deterrent seem under the illusion that Russia's nuclear arsenal will be ineffective.
    Maintaining nuclear weapons is very expensive.

    Remember Russian tyres in the first few weeks of the war? If Russian nukes have been subject to the same neglect, there is a high chance that most of them do not work, and may even be a threat mostly to those who seek to fire them.

    But with an estimated 6,000 nuclear warheads, even if they are 99% ineffective the result would be catastrophic.
    60 nukes being fired and successfully detonating at a variety of targets wouldn't be pretty but if that's all Russia had then it would lead to their total and swift annihilation.
    That's not the most likely of scenarios, though.

    The Atlantic has a pretty good article on the subject, written by Eric Schlosser (who knows a bit about the subject, having written Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety), and featuring an interview with William Perry, who knows a great deal more.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/
    That’s scary as f***, just reading through it. Wouldn’t want to be Biden, Johnson or Macron at the moment, knowing this stuff is all going on in the background.
    It is, very.

    On the other hand, the use of battlefield nukes doesn't win the war for Putin if it invites a massive conventional response, which it very likely does. And it makes him an international pariah forever.
    Assuming it doesn't bring about Armageddon.

    Hopefully he's still a rational sociopath.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    edited June 28
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Smarkets got a market up yet on Boris campaigning for Yes this time?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,200

    What makes me think Russia is 'losing' in Ukraine? Speaking as a non-expert:

    Well, a mixture of things. Firstly, what were Russia's war aims? We cannot be sure, but the form of the February invasion *looked* as though it was a quick thrust to try to decapitate Ukraine's leadership - hence the airborne bridgehead to Kyiv and the assassination attempts against Pres. Z. Too much effort was put into that entire mess for it to have just been a feint. Therefore Russia's aims were lkely for the entirety of Ukraine to be under their control: probably through absorption of the eastern provinces and a Belarus-or Chechen-style 'strongman' under Putin's control.

    That failed, and in late March they retreated from Kyiv and concentrated their forces on the eastern provinces. It's harder to know what Putin's war aims are now: but it is unlikely to be the capture of the entirety of Ukraine within the next year.

    Russia are advancing, but at a very slow rate, and at drastic cost. They have much less territory under their control than they held in March. It is hard to spin that into 'winning'.

    Their equipment, training and leadership have also been shown to be very poor. Russia's conventional forces - once feared - are strong, but only because of numbers. Strategically and tactically they have been outshone by the Ukrainians (unlike in 2014).

    Time is also not in Russia's hands. The sanctions will continue to hurt them, and their major weapon: oil and gas, will become less potent as Europe weans itself off the oil and gas (though that's taking too long), and Russia starts having extraction problems. And Ukraine will get more heavy equipment and weaponry as Russia uses up its own.

    Also, Putin's apparent aims for a 'Greater Russia' have been dented. NATO is expanding; something he would have wanted to avoid at all costs. Surrounding countries, from Estonia to Lithuania to Poland, are explicitly saying that they want no part of it. They are preparing for it.

    Does this mean Ukraine will 'win'? No. Does this mean Russia will 'lose'? No. But it is hard to find a realistic route whereby anything like Putin's initial aims will be fulfilled. And even harder to find one where Russia will end up richer and more influential than it was before.

    So I am happy to say that Russia is 'losing' at the moment. Though I freely admit that might change.

    I know it's not going to be a popular view on here, and I don't want to believe it myself either, but I think right now Russia is steadily "winning" a war of attrition in the Donbas through artillery.

    Ukrainian casualties have gradually crept up to approaching Russian levels and they also keep on taking territory (slowly) so sadly I'm not sure this is the case.

    I expect Putin will call a ceasefire at some point and declare a "victory" whereupon he hopes to fracture the West into accepting a de facto split in Ukraine.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    tlg86 said:

    Cilic and Berrettini out with COVID. Would they seriously cancel a final if someone had COVID? Golf seems to have stopped caring.

    Not sure playing five sets with COVID would be much of a spectacle though.
    Berrettini has reported being sick. So unsure it would be much different if he had the flu, say.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270
    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer considers scrapping proposed tax rise on the top 5% if Labour win the next general election and also scrapping plans to abolish tuition fees

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1541728809602498560?s=20&t=WjC_lppMBT6_wYXJllQfig

    How's he going to deal with the "there's no money left, signed Boris" note?
  • Pulpstar said:

    London data interesting. Looks like the poshest parts of inner London have experienced population decline.

    A lot of empty investment property I would guess. Healthy population growth south of the river, where people actually want to live!
    Ideally a lot of housing should be built in those areas, crashing the value of those "investments" while simultaneously giving people places to live.

    Unlikely to happen though, because no doubt the posh people who do live there don't want more people coming to live in their area and are powerful enough to stop it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,311
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    So GOP self-interest is to not pick Trump. American self-interest too, since he'd be a threat to its democracy, could knock that reeling beast out for the count.

    Will he only run for the nomination if it looks in the bag, I wonder? Or is that self-fulfilling in that IF he runs, DeSantis won't?
    At some point in the next few months, DeSantis and Trump are going to have to sit down and work out their strategy. Which definitely isn’t to knock lumps out of each other during the primary season.

    One will run and the other will endorse, or perhaps they will run together for the first half-dozen primaries and make the call then?
    That's the rational thing. The 2 of them make a deal. But in bigtime politics - and this is as big as it gets - with egos in charge it often doesn't work out that way. And Trump is nothing BUT an ego so ...
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    De Santis won't have a chance of being GOP nominee if he loses the Florida governorship in November.

    The abortion issue could also cost the GOP key swing states like Arizona and Ohio and Michigan as well as Florida in 2024 now post SC judgement if that becomes the key issue not cost of living. Buttigieg or O'Rourke could also end up as a more electable Democrat nominee
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247

    ..

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    I wonder what mandate the head of a party sub branch that has fought every single election since 2014 on the promise that voting for them will stop indy ref 2 and lost by a distance every time feels he has?

    If wee Dougie & Co follow through on the 'we're no playing' gambit it'll be great entertainment to see them trying to observe omerta while dying to spout Project Fear 347.
    The only mandate needed is the Tory majority at Westminster to respect the once in a generation vote.

    The UK government will therefore continue to refuse an official indyref2, tell Unionists to boycott any unofficial referendum and completely ignore the result, just as their conservative cousins in Spain did in 2017 with the unofficial Catalan independence referendum.

    The future of the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government alone
    It is not even that as labour and the lib dems are also opposed to indyref2, so even without a conservative government, which is increasingly likely, Westminster is not going to grant a section 30 agreement in years
    Indeed, the SNP's only chance is to get a hung parliament in 2024 with the Tories most seats but the SNP having the balance of power.

    Another Tory majority or Labour most seats and zero chance of an official indyref2
    Big G & HYUD on the same democracy blocking, granny bashing page, hot from *checks notes* North Wales and Epping.
    Maybe you should get the Scots to want indyref2 which they clearly do not and it clearly upsets you that some of us who have as much right as yourself to express an opposing view, and one that would win a referendum if it was held anyway
    You are entitled to express as many hypocritical, irrelevant and contradictory views as you want, as evidenced by the constant and unimpeded stream of them from North Wales.

    Thank God we don’t get a similar stream of misinformed pro-Nat bile from <<< checks notes >>> Sweden
    Or indeed from wherever the flint knapping takes yersel. Tbh your tourist's eye view of the Caucasus seems better informed than the same of Scotland, which gets a bit..repetitive.
    Sean might enjoy applying his fevered menopausal imagination to Scottish artefacts too.

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/441352832235631219/
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,301
    Sandpit said:

    MISTY said:

    Meanwhile in deep blue New England.

    https://www.suffolk.edu/news-features/news/2022/06/27/14/17/poll-rhode-island-congressional-district-could-flip-to-republican

    small sample. But voters there don't want four more years of Biden...? even dems

    I just don't see how Biden can plausible run.

    Which probably means he will.
    They can’t possibly run someone who will turn 82 just after the election.

    The problem they have to deal with, is the Kamala Harris problem. The Dems need to get Biden out of the way, but without Harris becoming the presumptive nominee by default. She has even lower ratings than the President, and would likely lose to any Republican in November 2024.

    What I think happens is that a stalking horse challenges Biden in the primaries, to open up the contest to others.
    Wasn't Gladstone still PM at 84, in the 19th century when medicine was not as advanced as now?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,067

    Cricket officials believe cocaine fuelling crowd problems
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cricket-officials-believe-cocaine-fuelling-crowd-problems-g6d3h5xx2 (£££)

    Cocaine has also been blamed for problems at football and racing.

    The crowd in the Western Terrace at Headingley was behaving in exactly the same way it has done for decades.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Carnyx said:

    Is that poster about who claimed last week that “England doesn’t exist”? Her Majesty’s Government has news for him:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/active-travel-england-update

    Historic England, Natural England, English Heritage, ... all carrying out legal duties and functions.
    And yet no English government or parliament for them to answer to - politically, England doesn't exist.

    "Active Travel in the part of the UK that isn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland" is far too wordy, but far more accurate.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    Incredible paper. Thanks for sharing.

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,425
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    They don’t have a mandate for this. It’s ultra vires.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    What makes me think Russia is 'losing' in Ukraine? Speaking as a non-expert:

    Well, a mixture of things. Firstly, what were Russia's war aims? We cannot be sure, but the form of the February invasion *looked* as though it was a quick thrust to try to decapitate Ukraine's leadership - hence the airborne bridgehead to Kyiv and the assassination attempts against Pres. Z. Too much effort was put into that entire mess for it to have just been a feint. Therefore Russia's aims were lkely for the entirety of Ukraine to be under their control: probably through absorption of the eastern provinces and a Belarus-or Chechen-style 'strongman' under Putin's control.

    That failed, and in late March they retreated from Kyiv and concentrated their forces on the eastern provinces. It's harder to know what Putin's war aims are now: but it is unlikely to be the capture of the entirety of Ukraine within the next year.

    Russia are advancing, but at a very slow rate, and at drastic cost. They have much less territory under their control than they held in March. It is hard to spin that into 'winning'.

    Their equipment, training and leadership have also been shown to be very poor. Russia's conventional forces - once feared - are strong, but only because of numbers. Strategically and tactically they have been outshone by the Ukrainians (unlike in 2014).

    Time is also not in Russia's hands. The sanctions will continue to hurt them, and their major weapon: oil and gas, will become less potent as Europe weans itself off the oil and gas (though that's taking too long), and Russia starts having extraction problems. And Ukraine will get more heavy equipment and weaponry as Russia uses up its own.

    Also, Putin's apparent aims for a 'Greater Russia' have been dented. NATO is expanding; something he would have wanted to avoid at all costs. Surrounding countries, from Estonia to Lithuania to Poland, are explicitly saying that they want no part of it. They are preparing for it.

    Does this mean Ukraine will 'win'? No. Does this mean Russia will 'lose'? No. But it is hard to find a realistic route whereby anything like Putin's initial aims will be fulfilled. And even harder to find one where Russia will end up richer and more influential than it was before.

    So I am happy to say that Russia is 'losing' at the moment. Though I freely admit that might change.

    I know it's not going to be a popular view on here, and I don't want to believe it myself either, but I think right now Russia is steadily "winning" a war of attrition in the Donbas through artillery.

    Ukrainian casualties have gradually crept up to approaching Russian levels and they also keep on taking territory (slowly) so sadly I'm not sure this is the case.

    I expect Putin will call a ceasefire at some point and declare a "victory" whereupon he hopes to fracture the West into accepting a de facto split in Ukraine.
    That's certainly a valid view. However, it is based on the idea that the Ukrainians and the west will 'allow' that scenario. Even if he makes gains through massed artillery in the east, the Ukrainians might spoil Russia's party around Kherson in the south. Would Putin settle for the ruined lands around the Donbass if he 'loses' access and security for Crimea? It is also dependent on the west fracturing and, somewhat surprisingly to me, the west appears to be gathering, not splitting, with France and Germany making much more consistent pro-Ukrainian noises in recent weeks, along with increased arms and finance to Ukraine.

    So yes, it may pan out the way you say. But there are (IMV) strong reasons to believe that what is happening in Donbass has more effect tactically than strategically.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer considers scrapping proposed tax rise on the top 5% if Labour win the next general election and also scrapping plans to abolish tuition fees

    https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1541728809602498560?s=20&t=WjC_lppMBT6_wYXJllQfig

    How's he going to deal with the "there's no money left, signed Boris" note?
    Spending cuts if no tax rises, which coupled with his promise to not restore free movement would arguably now make a Starmer government more rightwing than Johnson's on some issues
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,365
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    But not related to the census at all.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    Tony Benn credited him with introducing the Old Age Pension?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    Leon said:

    35C in Kotor, and still heading north. Probably 40C here in the limestone plazas of the Old Town. I do like hot sun but this is nearing the edge of my comfort zone

    You’ll be pleased you didn’t come to Dubai, 40ºC, 60% humidity and hazy - properly horrible this week.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    edited June 28
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,425
    algarkirk said:

    Three questions.

    1) I am way behind the curve in US politics. Does De Santis - plainly not a liberal lefty etc - share the same anti democratic/Germany 1930s tendencies as Trump?

    2) Are we reaching the point where it becomes obvious that the west/NATO will have to choose between (i) long bitter and possibly unwinnable indirect engagement with Russia and (ii) giving Russia a large chuck of what it wants?

    3) If the (ii) occurred would Boris want to be the PM holding the baby when that particular music stops?

    The west needs to reflect on Afghanistan.

    They have. It’s not the west that is bleeding

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,311
    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    So GOP self-interest is to not pick Trump. American self-interest too, since he'd be a threat to its democracy, could knock that reeling beast out for the count.

    Will he only run for the nomination if it looks in the bag, I wonder? Or is that self-fulfilling in that IF he runs, DeSantis won't?
    Like it or not, Trump has a massive following in America and his endorsement is generally prized in primaries. There are exceptions but his endorsements tend to win.

    If Trump fails to endorse any Presidential candidate chosen by the Republicans, that candidate is DOA, electorally. IF he isn't the candidate, he's the kingmaker.
    He does, and I don't like it. But the question for me is - is he liking the idea of puppeteer, sitting in Florida and yanking people around as they seek his favour, or is all that very gratifying but at the end of the day a poor substitute for the limelight and the big stage? All we need to do to make ourselves some serious money is get inside that orange bonce of his and see what's going on there. It's not a pleasant task but, boy, it'll be profitable for the person willing to take it on.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    “and NI”

    Ho ho.

    David lost a bit.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2

    I think we get our Blackadder Goes Forth perception of WW1 from Lloyd George, via his memoirs. He made sure Hague and Co carried the can.

    Hague never really got to put his side of the argument.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434

    Pulpstar said:

    London data interesting. Looks like the poshest parts of inner London have experienced population decline.

    A lot of empty investment property I would guess. Healthy population growth south of the river, where people actually want to live!
    Ideally a lot of housing should be built in those areas, crashing the value of those "investments" while simultaneously giving people places to live.

    Unlikely to happen though, because no doubt the posh people who do live there don't want more people coming to live in their area and are powerful enough to stop it.
    Not a whole lot of empty space unless you want to build on the Royal Parks.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    edited June 28
    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,844
    edited June 28
    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Timing is the preventative here, in that Indy would take a length of time to complete, so the opportunity to stare electoral defeat in the face, see Indy as a solution and complete it would be almost impossible.

    But if Boris could pull it off, I wouldn't entirely rule out such a gamble. He might know he was digging at the bottom of the cliff of his rUK and Tory support, but if a tornado of bullshit could get him through with the indifferent English, he'd be sore tempted by it. Blair won GE 2005 after Iraq. That he would subsequently be remembered as the man who not only.lost, but downright chucked, the Union would be a problem for another day.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,259
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd also say: "Plenty of clown time"

    Have a laugh, even if you are by yourself. Play a comedy show, tell an awful joke to your partner or children.

    Laughter really is the best medicine.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    Incredible paper. Thanks for sharing.

    I like this bit


    “Previous authors have speculated that PD may lead to a selective loss of religious faith in some patients (Butler & McNamara, 2016). However, recent neuroimaging research has raised the possibility that a lack of religious faith in some individuals could lead to PD (Ferguson et al., 2022).”

    Basically, atheism is a mild early form of Parkinson’s Disease, which often worsens into full-on PD

    Makes sense. The brain is hard wired for faith, the healthy mind is a believing mind. Atheists have spiritual palsy
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    tlg86 said:

    Cilic and Berrettini out with COVID. Would they seriously cancel a final if someone had COVID? Golf seems to have stopped caring.

    Just confirmed. No requirement to pull out if you have COVID.
    They just have because they aren't 100%.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    35C in Kotor, and still heading north. Probably 40C here in the limestone plazas of the Old Town. I do like hot sun but this is nearing the edge of my comfort zone

    You’ll be pleased you didn’t come to Dubai, 40ºC, 60% humidity and hazy - properly horrible this week.
    At least you have air conditioning everywhere. I agree with @Cicero's weather report and am hoping for the thunder storm they've promised - it's too hot and muggy to do anything, even go to the beach. Even the customary sauna visit might get skipped this time as it's hardly going to feel different to outside!
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    edited June 28
    kinabalu said:

    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    So GOP self-interest is to not pick Trump. American self-interest too, since he'd be a threat to its democracy, could knock that reeling beast out for the count.

    Will he only run for the nomination if it looks in the bag, I wonder? Or is that self-fulfilling in that IF he runs, DeSantis won't?
    Like it or not, Trump has a massive following in America and his endorsement is generally prized in primaries. There are exceptions but his endorsements tend to win.

    If Trump fails to endorse any Presidential candidate chosen by the Republicans, that candidate is DOA, electorally. IF he isn't the candidate, he's the kingmaker.
    He does, and I don't like it. But the question for me is - is he liking the idea of puppeteer, sitting in Florida and yanking people around as they seek his favour, or is all that very gratifying but at the end of the day a poor substitute for the limelight and the big stage? All we need to do to make ourselves some serious money is get inside that orange bonce of his and see what's going on there. It's not a pleasant task but, boy, it'll be profitable for the person willing to take it on.
    Fair enough. My instinct would be that his ego is just too big to endorse another candidate and try to manipulate them. I just don't see bringing himself to do that. He loves the limelight too much, He still holds rallies FFS.

    His ego also won't take to grooming a successor or having a successor on the ballot. Even as veep. His veep pick will be a no mark.

    For what its worth.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,319
    Oh goody, a quasi Trump thread. The PB Trumptons, DuraAce and MrEd, will be licking their lips at another chance to boosterise their hero.

    FWIW, my guess remains the same as it has always been: neither Biden nor Trumpton will run. Aside from the manifold other issues, they are both now too old.

    I could see DeSantis winning but @HYUFD makes a fine point about the FL gubernatorial race.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    MISTY said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2

    I think we get our Blackadder Goes Forth perception of WW1 from Lloyd George, via his memoirs. He made sure Hague and Co carried the can.

    Hague never really got to put his side of the argument.
    Sorry BIG error

    HAIG!!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Oh goody, a quasi Trump thread. The PB Trumptons, DuraAce and MrEd, will be licking their lips at another chance to boosterise their hero.

    FWIW, my guess remains the same as it has always been: neither Biden nor Trumpton will run. Aside from the manifold other issues, they are both now too old.

    I could see DeSantis winning but @HYUFD makes a fine point about the FL gubernatorial race.

    They are too old. But neither of them sees it that way.

    Biden vs Trump remains the far most likely contest imho.

    Dreadful.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    glw said:

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61961871

    46 immigrants dead in lorry in Texas

    That’s horrific, and just one incident of many.
    240,000 people were caught trying to illegally enter the US in May alone. With the numbers at a record level tragedy is almost inevitable.
    That’s astonishing. If 240k people are being caught every month, then there must be many more getting through - with seemingly no way to stop the flow.

    Dare I say it, but perhaps the previous President had the right idea about building a physical border.
    The US actually catches a lot of the people who trek across the desert. Fundamentally, it's not tough to see them from helicopter with IR cameras.

    But the big issue is that less than 10% of illegal immigrants cross the US border in a way that would be affected by the wall.

    Most (50-60%) turn up on tourist visas and don't leave. The rest come in like the guys in the lorry. They pay to hide in the bottom of someone's car, or the back of a truck, or climb onto the top of the myriad trains crossing the border.
    Overstayers are always a difficult one, and it’s a big place for people to disappear. Crackdown on employers paying cash to labourers? Blacklisting deported people, so they can’t come back in?

    Do they also need to make the border posts themselves bigger, and make sure every vehicle is physically searched with a scanner?
    Greg Abbot ordered that as a political stunt. It costs Texas (and other states) businesses millions

    The below is just one article but the knock on effects were huge, especially spoiled produce that baked in the sun.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/04/20/1093729789/texas-border-bridge-order-cost-billions?t=1656416396639
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,894

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    First guess- selling peerages.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    Pro_Rata said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Timing is the preventative here, in that Indy would take a length of time to complete, so the opportunity to stare electoral defeat in the face, see Indy as a solution and complete it would be almost impossible.

    But if Boris could pull it off, I wouldn't entirely rule out such a gamble. He might know he was digging at the bottom of the cliff of his rUK and Tory support, but if a tornado of bullshit could get him through with the indifferent English, he'd be sore tempted by it. Blair won GE 2005 after Iraq. That he would subsequently be remembered as the man who not only.lost, but downright chucked, the Union would be a problem for another day.

    Utter rubbish. The Tory party may be a bit clueless and spineless, but they’d remove him by lunchtime

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reasonable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
    Charities should be able to either be trans inclusive or be for "born female, currently female". I'd hope if a rape charity that caters exclusively for women born female was sued by a trans woman for excluding her - well I'd be with the charity in that instance too.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,465
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    I reckon it's the underwear.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,319

    Oh goody, a quasi Trump thread. The PB Trumptons, DuraAce and MrEd, will be licking their lips at another chance to boosterise their hero.

    FWIW, my guess remains the same as it has always been: neither Biden nor Trumpton will run. Aside from the manifold other issues, they are both now too old.

    I could see DeSantis winning but @HYUFD makes a fine point about the FL gubernatorial race.

    They are too old. But neither of them sees it that way.

    Biden vs Trump remains the far most likely contest imho.

    Dreadful.
    We’ll see.

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    Pulpstar said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reasonable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
    Charities should be able to either be trans inclusive or be for "born female, currently female". I'd hope if a rape charity that caters exclusively for women born female was sued by a trans woman for excluding her - well I'd be with the charity in that instance too.
    Yep. We agree (I think).
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,162
    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd also say: "Plenty of clown time"

    Have a laugh, even if you are by yourself. Play a comedy show, tell an awful joke to your partner or children.

    Laughter really is the best medicine.
    +1

    Comedy specials and podcasts kept me sane during the pandemic.

    All these mad clowns, most of whom are screwed up mentally themselves, keeping the rest of us straight.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047

    What makes me think Russia is 'losing' in Ukraine? Speaking as a non-expert:

    Well, a mixture of things. Firstly, what were Russia's war aims? We cannot be sure, but the form of the February invasion *looked* as though it was a quick thrust to try to decapitate Ukraine's leadership - hence the airborne bridgehead to Kyiv and the assassination attempts against Pres. Z. Too much effort was put into that entire mess for it to have just been a feint. Therefore Russia's aims were lkely for the entirety of Ukraine to be under their control: probably through absorption of the eastern provinces and a Belarus-or Chechen-style 'strongman' under Putin's control.

    That failed, and in late March they retreated from Kyiv and concentrated their forces on the eastern provinces. It's harder to know what Putin's war aims are now: but it is unlikely to be the capture of the entirety of Ukraine within the next year.

    Russia are advancing, but at a very slow rate, and at drastic cost. They have much less territory under their control than they held in March. It is hard to spin that into 'winning'.

    Their equipment, training and leadership have also been shown to be very poor. Russia's conventional forces - once feared - are strong, but only because of numbers. Strategically and tactically they have been outshone by the Ukrainians (unlike in 2014).

    Time is also not in Russia's hands. The sanctions will continue to hurt them, and their major weapon: oil and gas, will become less potent as Europe weans itself off the oil and gas (though that's taking too long), and Russia starts having extraction problems. And Ukraine will get more heavy equipment and weaponry as Russia uses up its own.

    Also, Putin's apparent aims for a 'Greater Russia' have been dented. NATO is expanding; something he would have wanted to avoid at all costs. Surrounding countries, from Estonia to Lithuania to Poland, are explicitly saying that they want no part of it. They are preparing for it.

    Does this mean Ukraine will 'win'? No. Does this mean Russia will 'lose'? No. But it is hard to find a realistic route whereby anything like Putin's initial aims will be fulfilled. And even harder to find one where Russia will end up richer and more influential than it was before.

    So I am happy to say that Russia is 'losing' at the moment. Though I freely admit that might change.

    I know it's not going to be a popular view on here, and I don't want to believe it myself either, but I think right now Russia is steadily "winning" a war of attrition in the Donbas through artillery.

    Ukrainian casualties have gradually crept up to approaching Russian levels and they also keep on taking territory (slowly) so sadly I'm not sure this is the case.

    I expect Putin will call a ceasefire at some point and declare a "victory" whereupon he hopes to fracture the West into accepting a de facto split in Ukraine.
    Putin will have "won" the Donbas by utterly destroying it. It may have agriculture, but 80% of the housing stock has been destroyed and pretty much 100% of the industry it used to have. A majority of the men of fighting age are dead or maimed. He might as well have nuked it for the viability of what is left.

    Nobody will rebuild there for fear of it being destroyed in a full Ukraine reinvasion - or at least destroyed by saboteurs. It will be an economic dead area, akin to that around Chernobyl.

    I expect this is not exactly what the people of the Donbas were hoping for. Will they consider it a "win"? A demonstration of Russian power by long-range demolition?

    And for this "win", Russia has lost much of its front-line capability. 5,000 pieces of fighting kit. And added a 1,000 km of border with NATO. And an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by NATO. With a West determined to delink its energy needs from Russian hydrocarbons. That might take 5 years to achieve, maybe 10. But then, when achieved, Russia is royally screwed.

    Meanwhile, Russia's best and brightest have already upped and left. They will be able to start up businesses in new countries, such that they have no incentive to go back to Russia.

    Russia will not know it has actually lost for ten years. By which time it will be an economic husk. A shrinking, impoverished place with very few friends and at best trading partners screwing them over - because they can.

    History will have one figurehead as shorthand to illustrate this massive loss of status in the world: Putin.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,760
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    I reckon it's the underwear.
    Check out Mormon Porn (er, from behind a VPN). A flourishing sub-genre which riffs on the ‘spiritual undergarments’ theme
  • Cyclefree said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
    I don't see why they couldn't, but I don't see any reason they're obliged to, either.

    Everything which isn't forbidden is allowed, not everything that isn't forbidden is compulsory.

    I agree with Selebian, the charity got it wrong, but they should be entitled to get it wrong, as they shouldn't be compelled to take actions they don't want to take, unless there's a reason it is required. My only regret is if they charity wins the case, which they probably should, then that will be misportrayed as that the charity got it right, rather than the charity did the wrong but legal thing.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,569
    edited June 28
    Cyclefree said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
    Indeed. My (limited) understanding of the law is that it would be perfectly legal to have a single sex group here. But I don't think it is (nor should be) unlawful for the charity to choose not to provide a single sex group. Personally, I think the charity should have provided a single sex group (in my opinion they got this wrong, but in a perfectly legal way) but the recourse is for people not to use them and not to fund them if, like me, they feel the charity got this wrong.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    MISTY said:

    kinabalu said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    On topic, do any of our US watchers have a view on whether DeSantis has a better or worse chance of beating Biden/Dem in the general?

    I think DeSantis would wipe the floor with pretty much any Dem, because the Dems (like the Conservatives here) are facing the cost of living crisis. Plus, of course, Biden is ... shall we say ... not as sharp as he used to be.

    Indeed, I think the Republicans have to be the clear favourites for 2024. The exception would be if Trump were the candidate again. Because a lot of the people who came out to vote against Trump last time will do so again. And there's also a host of Republicans who (while not voting for Biden/ADem) will likely sit on their hands if he is the nominee.

    Now, it's possible things turn around for the Dems before the General (not least if energy prices drop sharply, and if they get themselves a charismatic centrist below the age of 70 as candidate). But right now, I would say that DeSantis would be a very strong candidate for the Republicans in an election that favours them.
    So GOP self-interest is to not pick Trump. American self-interest too, since he'd be a threat to its democracy, could knock that reeling beast out for the count.

    Will he only run for the nomination if it looks in the bag, I wonder? Or is that self-fulfilling in that IF he runs, DeSantis won't?
    Like it or not, Trump has a massive following in America and his endorsement is generally prized in primaries. There are exceptions but his endorsements tend to win.

    If Trump fails to endorse any Presidential candidate chosen by the Republicans, that candidate is DOA, electorally. IF he isn't the candidate, he's the kingmaker.
    He does, and I don't like it. But the question for me is - is he liking the idea of puppeteer, sitting in Florida and yanking people around as they seek his favour, or is all that very gratifying but at the end of the day a poor substitute for the limelight and the big stage? All we need to do to make ourselves some serious money is get inside that orange bonce of his and see what's going on there. It's not a pleasant task but, boy, it'll be profitable for the person willing to take it on.
    Fair enough. My instinct would be that his ego is just too big to endorse another candidate and try to manipulate them. I just don't see bringing himself to do that. He loves the limelight too much, He still holds rallies FFS.

    His ego also won't take to grooming a successor or having a successor on the ballot. Even as veep. His veep pick will be a no mark.

    For what its worth.

    Yeah 100% this.

    And that's why he chose Pence. Pence still hasn't spoken out about Trumpers trying to lynch him on Jan 6th ffs. Trump always knew what Mike Pence was. A complete CUCK.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,455
    Carnyx said:

    Michael Gove is a one-man economic catastrophe
    Levelling Up Secretary is the driving force behind a whole series of terrible policy mistakes

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/27/michael-gove-one-man-economic-catastrophe/ (£££)

    M&S Oxford Street, landlords and fracking, apparently.

    Sounds more like a pre-emptive strike against one candidate to be Mr Johnson's successor.
    Carnyx, Gove is the duffer of duffers, apart from being a butt licking roaster , he could not run a bath.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,954
    edited June 28
    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast. Quite a step up from calling Senna a taxi driver.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,259
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    Sounds like the driving factor is that Mormons don't drink or smoke. I think I'll just give those up by choice if I want to live ten years longer, rather than believe the ramblings of Joseph Smith.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,931

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    I reckon it's the underwear.
    Check out Mormon Porn (er, from behind a VPN). A flourishing sub-genre which riffs on the ‘spiritual undergarments’ theme
    Christianity's twin foundations are wine, and psilocybin. I am hoping they are what underlie the health benefits.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd also say: "Plenty of clown time"

    Have a laugh, even if you are by yourself. Play a comedy show, tell an awful joke to your partner or children.

    Laughter really is the best medicine.
    Plus, getting attuned to nature. Walking the dog in point one leading to daily exercise in four will help this. Just be aware of what we share our lives with. Observing nature is a super stress-buster.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,916
    edited June 28

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,954
    edited June 28

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    The USA is far too heterogenous to extrapolate like that. This is more relevant

    “Mormon men live 10 years longer than other U.S. white males.Mormon women live more than five years longer than other U.S. white females.Those are the among the results of a 25-year study into the health habits and the longevity of the Mormon lifestyle by non-Mormon UCLA professors James E. Enstrom and Lester Breslow”

    https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer
    Sounds like the driving factor is that Mormons don't drink or smoke. I think I'll just give those up by choice if I want to live ten years longer, rather than believe the ramblings of Joseph Smith.
    No things like coke (the sugary stuff not the white powder) either.

    I know Mormons don't just live in Utah, but its the epicentre. I seemed to remember reading somewhere the parts of Salt Lake City are among the wealthiest, best educated etc etc etc in the whole of US, but also incredibly high rates of suicide. Having been to Utah a number of times, its a very odd place, always got the feeling of the friendliness was about recruiting new blood.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    What makes me think Russia is 'losing' in Ukraine? Speaking as a non-expert:

    Well, a mixture of things. Firstly, what were Russia's war aims? We cannot be sure, but the form of the February invasion *looked* as though it was a quick thrust to try to decapitate Ukraine's leadership - hence the airborne bridgehead to Kyiv and the assassination attempts against Pres. Z. Too much effort was put into that entire mess for it to have just been a feint. Therefore Russia's aims were lkely for the entirety of Ukraine to be under their control: probably through absorption of the eastern provinces and a Belarus-or Chechen-style 'strongman' under Putin's control.

    That failed, and in late March they retreated from Kyiv and concentrated their forces on the eastern provinces. It's harder to know what Putin's war aims are now: but it is unlikely to be the capture of the entirety of Ukraine within the next year.

    Russia are advancing, but at a very slow rate, and at drastic cost. They have much less territory under their control than they held in March. It is hard to spin that into 'winning'.

    Their equipment, training and leadership have also been shown to be very poor. Russia's conventional forces - once feared - are strong, but only because of numbers. Strategically and tactically they have been outshone by the Ukrainians (unlike in 2014).

    Time is also not in Russia's hands. The sanctions will continue to hurt them, and their major weapon: oil and gas, will become less potent as Europe weans itself off the oil and gas (though that's taking too long), and Russia starts having extraction problems. And Ukraine will get more heavy equipment and weaponry as Russia uses up its own.

    Also, Putin's apparent aims for a 'Greater Russia' have been dented. NATO is expanding; something he would have wanted to avoid at all costs. Surrounding countries, from Estonia to Lithuania to Poland, are explicitly saying that they want no part of it. They are preparing for it.

    Does this mean Ukraine will 'win'? No. Does this mean Russia will 'lose'? No. But it is hard to find a realistic route whereby anything like Putin's initial aims will be fulfilled. And even harder to find one where Russia will end up richer and more influential than it was before.

    So I am happy to say that Russia is 'losing' at the moment. Though I freely admit that might change.

    I know it's not going to be a popular view on here, and I don't want to believe it myself either, but I think right now Russia is steadily "winning" a war of attrition in the Donbas through artillery.

    Ukrainian casualties have gradually crept up to approaching Russian levels and they also keep on taking territory (slowly) so sadly I'm not sure this is the case.

    I expect Putin will call a ceasefire at some point and declare a "victory" whereupon he hopes to fracture the West into accepting a de facto split in Ukraine.
    Putin will have "won" the Donbas by utterly destroying it. It may have agriculture, but 80% of the housing stock has been destroyed and pretty much 100% of the industry it used to have. A majority of the men of fighting age are dead or maimed. He might as well have nuked it for the viability of what is left.

    Nobody will rebuild there for fear of it being destroyed in a full Ukraine reinvasion - or at least destroyed by saboteurs. It will be an economic dead area, akin to that around Chernobyl.

    I expect this is not exactly what the people of the Donbas were hoping for. Will they consider it a "win"? A demonstration of Russian power by long-range demolition?

    And for this "win", Russia has lost much of its front-line capability. 5,000 pieces of fighting kit. And added a 1,000 km of border with NATO. And an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by NATO. With a West determined to delink its energy needs from Russian hydrocarbons. That might take 5 years to achieve, maybe 10. But then, when achieved, Russia is royally screwed.

    Meanwhile, Russia's best and brightest have already upped and left. They will be able to start up businesses in new countries, such that they have no incentive to go back to Russia.

    Russia will not know it has actually lost for ten years. By which time it will be an economic husk. A shrinking, impoverished place with very few friends and at best trading partners screwing them over - because they can.

    History will have one figurehead as shorthand to illustrate this massive loss of status in the world: Putin.
    Also remember the mafia-style gangsters who have been running the Russian parts of the Donbass have been a bit... gangsterish. Russia has had thirty years and immense resources to change itself into a world powerhouse. Instead a few stole the money and Russia has declined, kept afloat by oil and gas resources.

    They have not even got a decent IC capability. TSMC was founded in 1987, FFS, and is a world leader.

    Does anyone on here want to go and live in Chechnya under Kadyrov? I see no reason to believe the Donbass under Russian control would fare even that well.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,455

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    They don’t have a mandate for this. It’s ultra vires.

    Bollox you halfwitted cretin. They have a majority in parliament.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,774
    edited June 28

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    Incredible paper. Thanks for sharing.

    Be interesting to know if it was the shared rites that made the difference or the actual religiosity.

    I suppose there are fewer people that attend the local church as a community thing now.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    The key factors contributing to good health and happiness are well known. What is remarkable is that such a large proportion of humanity completely ignores the research.

    Buy a dog.
    Go easy on the booze.
    No drugs.
    Routine, daily exercise.
    Being kind to others.
    Plenty of “down-time”, including generous convalescence periods after illness.
    Inter-generational households.
    Intimacy and touching.
    Feeling belonging to a larger group.

    It ain’t rocket science.
    I'd also say: "Plenty of clown time"

    Have a laugh, even if you are by yourself. Play a comedy show, tell an awful joke to your partner or children.

    Laughter really is the best medicine.
    You mean Boris in charge is actually good for us all.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited June 28
    Afternoon all.

    Just doing the monthly bills, and picked up a mini-tip.

    Talking of philosophising, why not reduce your energy payment by £40 a month for 10 months - remembering that Rishi will be adding £400 to your account in the autumn.

    Spend it on summer downtime. Or beer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,954
    edited June 28
    Appears I have dodged the rona again, still got the rona-virgin lottery ticket. Big international conference turned into a super spreader event, I managed to avoid it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,488

    Oh goody, a quasi Trump thread. The PB Trumptons, DuraAce and MrEd, will be licking their lips at another chance to boosterise their hero.

    He's not my hero and I do not align with him on political or philosophical level.

    I do want him to win in 2024 because I think it will be funny. (Pace JJ - secret to longevity)

    Although there may be an element of Zizek style Freudo-Marxist accelerationism to my thinking.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    Sorry, you're a bloke and you glory in the thought of a young female rape victim losing this claim?

    Lovely.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 251
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Do I have to believe to get the benefits, or can I fake religious conviction and become healthier?
    That paper suggests you HAVE to believe. Extrinsic religiosity - the appearance of faith, church going, etc - is near useless without intrinsic religiosity: true belief

    Hear the Word, my friend, hear the Word
    Do you ever actually look at these sources, or just read the tweet and think that's good enough?

    The paper is from The Journal of Religion and Health, which states in its aims it aims to promote religion in health and medicine. And the first paragraph says that the resea\rch relies on patricipants self-reporting that they have Parkinson's. It's not just rubbish, it isn't even good rubbish.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,311
    edited June 28
    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.
    I didn't see any inference in the BBC report that the trans person attended for ungenuine reasons. And apparently the charity is clear in its materials that it's trans inclusive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,270
    edited June 28

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    Then you'd expect the more religious USA to have a greater life expectancy than the more secular western Europe, which it doesn't.
    For most of human history religiosity has conferred a clear evolutionary advantage, but that may have changed now as religiosity is associated with lower educational outcomes and hence incomes, notably in the US where evangelicals have low levels of educational attainment.
    Actually Roman Catholics, white mainline Protestants, Jews and Hindus are all more likely to have a college degree than Americans without a religious affiliation.
    Even if evangelical and Muslims aren't

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/245533/educational-attainment-of-us-religious-groups-by-faith-tradition/

    Jews, Hindus, Episcopalians and Presbyterians are also richer than atheist and agnostic Americans


    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The first England and Wales census 2021 have been published.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationandhouseholdestimatesenglandandwales/census2021



    On Census Day, 21 March 2021, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300 (56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales); this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales.

    The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912.

    The population grew in each of the nine regions of England and also grew in Wales; the region with the highest population growth was the East of England, which increased by 8.3% from 2011 (a gain of approximately 488,000 residents).

    There were 30,420,100 women (51.0% of the overall population) and 29,177,200 men (49.0%) in England and Wales.

    There were more people than ever before in the older age groups; the proportion of the population who were aged 65 years and over was 18.6% (16.4% in 2011).

    There were 24,782,800 households in England and Wales on Census Day; the number of households increased by more than 1.4 million since 2011 (6.1%), when there were 23,366,044 households.

    Any data on religion? (Asking as I have a bet with @isam.)
    Yes


    “Compared with people who considered religion very important in their lives, those who considered it“not at all important” had a tenfold risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. rd.springer.com/article/10.100… Disregards reverse causation, like premorbid Parkinson compromising religiosity“

    https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1541714975550574592?s=21&t=B1PCGPZWuzxmWePSFz5JzQ
    That's one remarkable finding if it proves true.
    It’s almost certainly true, and not that remarkable

    There are dozens of scientific analyses proving the health benefits of religion. The socialising, the communality, the crucial sense of “life purpose”, the absence of nihilism, the abstention from booze, drugs, risk, and so on. - even group singing and dancing, even beautiful buildings and liturgy - they all mean better mental and physical health
    It is remarkable in its scale I meant. Ten times isn't marginal. It is massive.
    It sounds nonsense to me

    Fill in the blank: If you misplace a decimal point your result is out by a factor of precisely ***?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,954
    Sandpit said:

    Appears Nelson Piquet openly called Lewis Hamilton the N word on a podcast.

    He’s spent the last 35 years being an idiot.

    For some context, it was a Brazilian podcast and he was speaking Portuguese, where presumably that word doesn’t quite have the same offensiveness as in English.

    Also don’t forget that he’s Max Verstappen’s father-in-law.
    From what I understand the exact Portuguese word he used isn't quite the US N word, however he is on a public podcast talking about a black man and he is well travelled / well versed in the world to know what he is doing. Bit like Suarez name calling Erva.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    I see Douglas Ross is saying he wouldn't participate in any 'pretend referendum' if Sturgeon organises one. Given his track record on flip flopping I wouldn't be confident in him sticking to that though.

    Hmm. If he doesn't change his mind, he, and anyone who behaves like him, can therefore be disregarded completely, given that the SNP and Greens have a mandate. Yes, 'mandate', which his lords and masters in London make a great thing of having.
    If Sturgeon and co wish to hold a referendum then they can but if it's not legitimate the easiest way to handle is to to encourage those who are against independence to completely ignore it.

    Then if 80% vote yes on a 40% turn out you've got nothing to worry about. 80% voting yes on a 65% turnout would however be a big problem..
    Democracy is “a big problem”. That’s Boris’s Brexit Britain for you.

    I'm going to get all rules is rules, here.

    To be democracy, the referendum has got to be legal, whether that is by Westminster's agreement or by legal ruling.

    Anything done outside that would be at very best advisory on Westminster, and essentially part of the politics rather than the democracy. As would any boycott, as are all the arguments around getting to a poll. And on the SNPs part could be good or bad politics depending on how the hand was played.

    Although still Unionist, I'd personally be in favour of another Indyref, and I'm in favour of giving an innate right of periodic referendum to Scottish Parliament (every 16 years, and 2 phase to allow voters to ratify the final negotiation, as. per Brexit learning). I still fear Boris will see the electoral advantage and, come the moment, will allow a jettisoning Indyref, where he plays the equivalent wrecking role as Corbyn did for remain. The rules will be the rules, but that would be a highly unsatisfactory way of going about things.

    .
    Total misreading of Boris. He may be a lying shyster (OK he is) but he doesn’t want to be the man who lost the UK. No one does. It would make Cameron’s Brexit humiliation look like a minor by election set back in Newent
    Indeed, forget being remembered as the man who delivered Brexit, history would remember Boris for all eternity as the man who broke the union
    Bollocks.

    What is David Lloyd George remembered for? Winning World War 1, or "breaking the union"?
    He didn't break the Union, we still have the United Kingdom of GB and NI. He is also remembered for his social reforms as much as WW1.

    Losing Scotland however does end the UK, that would put Johnson on a par with Lord North's loss of the American colonies in the history books, Brexit just a minor footnote. He knows that so will continue to refuse an official indyref2
    Oh give over! Are Attlee and Churchill badly remembered for "losing" India? "Losing" Ireland is every bit as consequential as "losing" Scotland. More in fact, because that was in an era before the principle of self-determination was accepted.

    The only reason you think of "GB and NI" as "still the UK" is because that was what you have been brought up to know, when in the past all of Ireland would have been included.

    If the UK were to break up tomorrow and England were to be a country in its own right, and Scotland were to become a province within a country called Europe (as the EU is evolving into) then just as you were brought up knowing GB and NI as your country, in a hundred years time English people would know England as their country.

    What will be far more relevant and interesting and significant is why England isn't a part of the European Union even if Scotland is, not why Scotland left the UK which by then would be as meaningless as the fact Ireland left the UK, or India left the Empire.
    Churchill didn't lose India, he opposed Indian independence. Attlee allowed Indian independence but India was never in union with the UK as Scotland is in union with England as part of the UK and India was a colony for a much shorter period than England has been in the UK.

    If GB was broken up so Scotland and England were separate countries after over 300 years, that would be far more significant than England being out of the EU after a mere 40 odd years.

    Johnson would be forever remembered as the man who broke up Great Britain and the UK, Brexit just a mere footnote
    Completely backwards and false. There is a reason Attlee is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" India, and why Lloyd George is remembered for what he did, not for "losing" Ireland.

    If the UK breaks up then in the future the idea of the UK will be a funny concept, like the idea of the British Empire. And you can't just count the years that have passed, rather than the far more important years that are yet to come.

    Whether we "have" Edinburgh as part of our country in a hundred years or not is frankly as utterly irrelevant as whether we "have" Dublin or not today. Instead what kind of country we have become is much more relevant, and the fact that England is an independent country and not a part of the European Union will matter much, much more than the fact that Edinburgh is like Dublin in a neighbouring state.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938

    Appears I have dodged the rona again, still got the rona-virgin lottery ticket. Big international conference turned into a super spreader event, I managed to avoid it.

    Me to. We are becoming as rare as hens teeth. It has been suggested I might have had it without symptoms, but as my wife is also in the same category it seems unlikely that would apply to both of us.

    It could be we lead very boring lives, but I have been abroad numerous times and had periods in hospital and attended a number of events full of people.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,311

    Cyclefree said:

    Selebian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    On the one hand, this sounds (from the person involved as reported) like a potential case of a man rocking up to either cause trouble or to get kicks from hearing about the experiences.

    On the other hand, I think charities should be largely free to arrange their services how they see best - my reading is that the charity would in law be able to have a single sex group here and be able to show a reaosnable lawful basis for doing so. However, I don't think they should be compelled (by law - they're funders should be free to withdrw funding etc) to do so.

    So, I think the charity got this wrong (on the facts presented, which may not be the full story) but that they should be free to get it wrong.

    Charities have to comply with the law. So they are not free to get it wrong if this means breaching equality or other laws.

    What I don't understand is why it could not provide group sessions which includes TW and ones which are single sex only (the latter are permitted). That way everyone is catered for, with no-one's rights trampled on or ignored and the needs of rape victims properly cared for.
    I don't see why they couldn't, but I don't see any reason they're obliged to, either.

    Everything which isn't forbidden is allowed, not everything that isn't forbidden is compulsory.

    I agree with Selebian, the charity got it wrong, but they should be entitled to get it wrong, as they shouldn't be compelled to take actions they don't want to take, unless there's a reason it is required. My only regret is if they charity wins the case, which they probably should, then that will be misportrayed as that the charity got it right, rather than the charity did the wrong but legal thing.
    Got it wrong in what way?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I hope the rape crisis charity wins this case

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61958346

    Sorry, you're a bloke and you glory in the thought of a young female rape victim losing this claim?

    Lovely.
    The charity is very clear it is trans inclusive. That's up to them, and doesn't break any 'equality' laws so far as I can see that @cyclefree puts forward as the legally have to be obeyed

    I don't think it should receive taxpayer funding either fwiw, but it has a right to exist as it wants to.
This discussion has been closed.