Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 20/1 tip to start off 2017

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited January 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 20/1 tip to start off 2017

Betway have some specials up on what will happen to UKIP in 2017, the one that caught my attention was Nigel Farage to end 2017 as UKIP leader at 20/1, much like a persistent rash, Nigel Farage regularly returns as the next UKIP leader. Ladbrokes make it 3/1 that Nigel Farage will be the next UKIP leader, so by my reckoning the 20/1 on Farage to end 2017 as UKIP leader is value and here’s why.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First .... again!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited January 2017

    First .... again!

    Damn you sir!

    The first first of the new year, too :(
  • I don't much fancy this Farage bet, as I reckon Nigel is ready to move on from his UKIP days, probably heading Stateside in one capacity or another.

    My non-political fun bet at this very early stage of 2017 is based on the highly charismatic Rory McIlroy returning to the scene big time as the world's top golfer by winning at least one of the four major tournaments and accordingly going on to win SPOTY 2017, where Ladbrokes have him on offer at stand-out odds of 33/1. After the Olympics last year, 2017 is likely to produce fewer individual star performers and Andy Murray notwithstanding, will therefore provides a better opportunity for someone of Rory's ilk to collect this award. As ever, DYOR.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited January 2017
    There used to be a saying about a good new years eve meant a crap year and vice versa.

    Reading the name Nigel Farage next to 'leader' before my new years eve is over promises a good year
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Happy New Year everyone.
  • Looking further afield as regards novelty bets for 2017, the prospect of Prince Harry marrying over the next 12 months looks distinctly possible, especially considering his seemingly besotted state over Meghan Markle. Perhaps is now the time for Harry to final settle down and make some serious plans about his future - therefore Stan James' odds of 12/1 against wedding bells chiming during 2017 certainly has a certain appeal (no pun intended), but unless he were to take an albeit characteristically cavalier approach and just simply do it, i.e. without all the pomp and ceremony, the timescale appears a little tight.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    So, there is more chance of a mixed race person marrying into the royal family than becoming a Lib Dem MP. :lol:
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited January 2017
    Not Farage, but someone different, and preferably female for a couple of reasons.

    Firstly it would soften the image of a bar room bully boy. Secondly, it would blunt the attacks from the 'progressives' whose ad-hominem attacks will become more difficult. Can't be seen to be misogynist. Suzanne Evans would have fitted the bill. A male Scouser is just too easy a target.

    But I still think Mrs May's "Brexit means Brexit" makes a Ukip revival in the short tem unlikely.

    Edit: Mr Eagles, I have to agree that 20/1 is a long price.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited January 2017
    @peter_from_putney - I'm wary about commenting on SPOTY given how badly I called it this year, but I'm not convinced about Rory. I reckon he needs to win the Masters (9-1) to complete the career slam (and it's on the BBC). Would that be enough to give him a shot at SPOTY? Perhaps, but it's a long time to wait until December.

    Personally, I think if we win the America's Cup, Ben Ainslie will be in with a very good chance of winning SPOTY. He's in to 12-1, which I think is long if you think we'll win the America's Cup. But I don't know how good a chance we have of winning.

    And on Prince Harry getting married, his brother's marriage was announced less than a year before it happened, though it did cross the new year. However, you'd think they'd need to be doing the planning now for an August wedding and I think there is the thorny issue of Ms Markle's faith to deal with too. So I think it's unlikely to be this year.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Monarchy still going strong! And nothing wrong with being an Anglican.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    A Happy New Year to one and all. Well, except bookmakers! May they pay out with a smile, though!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    I think Jorge Lorenzo is great value at 5/1 to be 2017 MotoGP champion. He is always at his best when his not inconsiderable pride has been injured (as it was in 2016) and he's got something to prove (that he can succeed at Ducati where his much detested nemesis Rossi failed).

    Also he is strong where the Ducati package has traditionally been weak (corner speed) so even if he marginally improves that area and they retain their power advantage it could all come together.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all and a happy New Year.

    This time next year I doubt Farage will be UKIP leader, he’s achieved his political aim and out grown the dwindling purple party, nothing less than supreme leader of Luxembourg will do.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Ace, not up on two-wheeled motorsport, but sounds interesting. Are those Betfair odds?

    On-topic: bet sounds good, excepting I don't have a Betway account.

    I largely agree with the reasoning. I do think it's odds against, but not 20/1.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Happy New Year all. Yes, the 20-1 looks jolly good odds.

    And logical song's charts are good too. Globally, we've never had it so good and it's only our focus on every bit of bad news anywhere on the planet that prevents us from recognising it.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited January 2017
    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    @RobD
    "Monarchy still going strong! And nothing wrong with being an Anglican."
    Is that what you got from the charts?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    @RobD
    "Monarchy still going strong! And nothing wrong with being an Anglican."
    Is that what you got from the charts?

    I think Benji covered the most salient points in his tweet!
  • Good morning and Happy New Year! It 's great not to have a hangover.

    I think Farage is very happy doing what he is doing, which is sounding off in the right wing press, annoying Theresa May, hanging out with white supremacists in the US and being fawned on by extremely rich reactionaries. He is done with the political process for a while. He'll only return when he starts getting less coverage. I doubt that will be in 2017.
  • Happy New Year to all of you, even the ones who (think they) know it all :o
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    Easy to see why the reactionaries of the alt. right are angry. Despite 2016 they are losing the culture war.

    Happy New Year, looking forward to your Oscar tips!
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Happy New Year

    Prof Frank McDonough
    1 January 1909. The first payments of old-age pensions were made. People over 70, who qualified, received 5 shillings (25p) a week. https://t.co/bFq6L0LjnC
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    In unsurprising news, a spot of New Year terrorism (Turkey):
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38481521

    Have to wait a few weeks to find out if anything happened in Germany.
  • There is a lot to be said for an early night and no booze on New Year's Eve.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Ace, not up on two-wheeled motorsport, but sounds interesting. Are those Betfair odds?

    On-topic: bet sounds good, excepting I don't have a Betway account.

    I largely agree with the reasoning. I do think it's odds against, but not 20/1.

    William Hill, I think.

    MotoGP betting is interesting as the market is always massively distorted by the presence of Rossi who will attract bets to such a degree that his odds never have to offer value. That sometimes makes other riders under-valued to some degree.

    2016 was a weird year with an anomalously high number of wet races so the form book isn't a great guide to 2017.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Ace, ah, only got Ladbrokes/Betfair accounts, alas.

    Interesting note on Rossi.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Happy New Year everyone! Those look like good odds to me, but it probably won't help UKIP much.

    O/T: Was that a Kremlinbot on the last thread?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    @RobD
    "Monarchy still going strong! And nothing wrong with being an Anglican."
    Is that what you got from the charts?

    It would have been more useful to show people identifying with a religion (not that I think there is necessarily a link between being liberal and being non-religious). Picking Anglican just covers up the growth in other religions in the UK and can give the impression that there is something particularly illiberal about Anglicans.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Fox

    "Easy to see why the reactionaries of the alt. right are angry. Despite 2016 they are losing the culture war.

    Happy New Year, looking forward to your Oscar tips!"

    That's an interesting and comforting thought and the first green shoot of optimism for the New Year.....

    ...and a Happy New Year to you
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Happy New Year PBers. 2017 is going to be fascinating for current affairs junkies.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    PlatoSaid said:

    Happy New Year

    Prof Frank McDonough
    1 January 1909. The first payments of old-age pensions were made. People over 70, who qualified, received 5 shillings (25p) a week. https://t.co/bFq6L0LjnC

    Thanks to a Liberal government! Equivalent of £20 today. Probably the best they could get through the Lords!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Dura_Ace said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Ace, not up on two-wheeled motorsport, but sounds interesting. Are those Betfair odds?

    On-topic: bet sounds good, excepting I don't have a Betway account.

    I largely agree with the reasoning. I do think it's odds against, but not 20/1.

    William Hill, I think.

    MotoGP betting is interesting as the market is always massively distorted by the presence of Rossi who will attract bets to such a degree that his odds never have to offer value. That sometimes makes other riders under-valued to some degree.

    2016 was a weird year with an anomalously high number of wet races so the form book isn't a great guide to 2017.
    Yes, I can imagine that laying Rossi can be profitable.

    I have to say, however, I don't see there being value in Lorenzo at 5-1. If you think that bike can compete for the title I'd suggest backing Lorenzo's teammate and old foe Andrea Dovizioso at 22-1 with Coral.

    Personally I find it hard to see past Marquez winning again. His teammate isn't a threat and I'd expect Honda to have improved the bike on last season. Vinales did very well last season, but he needs to get used to the Yamaha. Could Rossi do it? It would be nice, but I think his time is up.

    As a complete outside shot, I wonder if Cal Crutchlow at 80-1 with Sky Bet is worth a punt? He was going toe to toe with the factory bikes last season and did get a win in the dry (albeit at the tricky Philip Island).
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    Good morning and Happy New Year! It 's great not to have a hangover.

    Happy New Year everyone. Urgh wish I could say the same
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT. I've never really thought about the 'Off Topic" symbol at the bottom of the posts but while looking for a 'quote' symbol I noticed that 'Moses' (the poster not the deliverer of tablets) has been clicking my 'Off Topic' almost all morning. This seems such a bizarre way for anyone to spend their time that I'm worried he's OK?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Terrible news from Istanbul. What a way to start the year. :/

    On a liberal forum I read there are a few Turks who are beginning to realise the problem is Islam and just how warped their secular nation has become. In a nod to SeanT, one hopes our liberal fools realise the same over here before we too suffer attacks of this kind on our way of life.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    Easy to see why the reactionaries of the alt. right are angry. Despite 2016 they are losing the culture war.

    Happy New Year, looking forward to your Oscar tips!
    It would seem that fears that the UK will become a hard right country, following Brexit, are misplaced.

    As an aside, though, I don't see what fewer Anglicans has to do with liberalism. Anglicanism is very liberal.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    Easy to see why the reactionaries of the alt. right are angry. Despite 2016 they are losing the culture war.

    Happy New Year, looking forward to your Oscar tips!
    It would seem that fears that the UK will become a hard right country, following Brexit, are misplaced.

    As an aside, though, I don't see what fewer Anglicans has to do with liberalism. Anglicanism is very liberal.
    That depends, how many of those liberals are actually going to vote?
  • The more authoritarian and non-secular Turkey becomes the more attacks there seem to be.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Re Istanbul. For all those who worry about Muslim governments interfering with the social life of a city could do worse than a trip to Istanbul. Some of the wildest and best clubs anywhere. The producer I work with there is gay and the gay clubs are filmable. Very sad news this morning but lets hope it doesn't lead to an over reaction.

    (calling Moses)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    Easy to see why the reactionaries of the alt. right are angry. Despite 2016 they are losing the culture war.

    Happy New Year, looking forward to your Oscar tips!
    It would seem that fears that the UK will become a hard right country, following Brexit, are misplaced.

    As an aside, though, I don't see what fewer Anglicans has to do with liberalism. Anglicanism is very liberal.
    Though I suspect that those opposed to same sex relationships or women working are as likely to be Muslim Labour voters as Tory backwoodsmen.

    Anglicanism is mostly liberal, I agree, though the growing congregations tend to be on the evangelical wing.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Happy New Year everyone. A heck of a lot of fireworks round our way. When I was a lad, all there was would be a flare sent up from a boat on the Tyne and some hooters hooting. Changing times.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    The more authoritarian and non-secular Turkey becomes the more attacks there seem to be.

    I wonder why...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    PlatoSaid said:

    Happy New Year

    Prof Frank McDonough
    1 January 1909. The first payments of old-age pensions were made. People over 70, who qualified, received 5 shillings (25p) a week. https://t.co/bFq6L0LjnC

    Thanks to a Liberal government! Equivalent of £20 today. Probably the best they could get through the Lords!
    Apparently not:

    "Though some in the Lords still opposed pensions as ‘thinly disguised outdoor relief’ and others still favoured a contributory pension as ideologically more respectable, the 1908 Old Age Pensions Bill found widespread support..."

    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04817
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    Trying to work out in this moderately hungover state if the 25/1 on disbandment is value.

    It would probably take at the least a fairly clean Brexit, Banks and his money moving on, and a big enough scandal within the party. None of those seems unlikely, but there's the possibility they'll just keep going anyway, even if it is a sort of tiny continuity Ukip. On the whole there probably isn't value there. Agree the 20/1 on Farage looks good though.
  • Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    I would think that the reactionary 20% will survive due to a steady bolstering by Mrs Merkel's muslim migrants.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Hope this is all it is.

    PA
    #Breaking The Queen will not attend a New Year's Day church service at Sandringham because of a lingering heavy cold
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Unless something very wicked were to be uncovered, I'd expect the Tories to hold Thanet South, for the same reason the Lib Dems held Winchester.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    I would think that the reactionary 20% will survive due to a steady bolstering by Mrs Merkel's muslim migrants.
    Our Muslims are almost entirely the non-EU Commonwealth ones so favoured by kippers...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745

    Happy New Year everyone. A heck of a lot of fireworks round our way. When I was a lad, all there was would be a flare sent up from a boat on the Tyne and some hooters hooting. Changing times.

    Indeed. A lot here in lowland East London from 10pm to 12.30 - certainly more than I can recall from previous years.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    John_M said:

    Happy New Year PBers. 2017 is going to be fascinating for current affairs junkies.

    Hope to see you posting more again this year!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    tlg86 said:


    I have to say, however, I don't see there being value in Lorenzo at 5-1. If you think that bike can compete for the title I'd suggest backing Lorenzo's teammate and old foe Andrea Dovizioso at 22-1 with Coral.

    Lorenzo has beaten Dovizioso in every single season that they've raced together in the same class. So if the Ducati is a championship winning package then Lorenzo will be the man who wins on it.

    For Lorenzo to win he needs Marquez to have 3 (or ideally 4 DNFs) and for the Ducati to be competitive at corner speed tracks. We know it can win at tracks which are basically 2 or 3 drag strips connected by hairpins (Sepang and whatever that piece of shit in Austria is called). The chances of all that happening are less than 50% but more than 20% which is why I think 5/1 is value.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Imperial War Museum
    #OnThisDay 1942: 26 Allied nations sign declaration to create international peacekeeping organisation, the @UN. https://t.co/R1QOqLEhpR
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745

    stodge said:


    Liberalism isn't just about "impeding the lifestyle freedom of individuals" - that's libertarianism (I think). Liberalism is about education and using that to enable people to make sensible lifestyle choices but it's also about a general sense of "the public good" - promoting individual and public health as an example so illnesses don't spread through the population.

    What you describe as "nanny statism" (a very conservative term) is in fact basic governance - helping people to make the best of their lives. Reducing sugar intake and alcohol and tobacco consumption isn't being nanny statist - not only does it encourage individuals to live better but it saves society the cost of having to deal with the remedial treatment of those suffering the medical impacts of diabetes, alcoholism and other medical conditions directly linked to diet and lifestyle.

    Yes, people have the right to drink themselves to death or eat whatever they like but there's no reason why society should make it easy. Telling people the consequences of possible actions isn't "nanny state" - it's education - or would you prefer people died or suffered in ignorance ?

    I refer you to the works of John Stuart Mill
    Yes, I've read Mill. The problem is everyone interprets him differently and I would never equate his methodology for running 19th Century Victorian society with the 21st Century/

    If you read what I wrote, I acknowledge the right of the individual to make poor lifestyle choices - there is however the notion that as a society we all pay for those poor choices through the lack of healthcare provision to those in genuine need.

    The sovereignty of the individual is fine but it could only be unlimited in a society with unlimited resources. In a finite world, resources have to be prioritised - it's not unreasonable (I would argue) for the state to seek to inform and educate people on health and for society as a whole to consider whether those who, in the face of that information, choose to make lifestyle choices which negatively impact on their health (and the health of those around them) shouldn't have to take some measure of responsibility for their actions.
  • "The shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, has called for a “fundamental rethink of immigration rules” in remarks that appear to put him at odds with the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer warned that politicians were in danger of ignoring the reasons why people voted to leave the European Union and that those concerns included immigration. “There should be a fundamental rethink of im­migration rules from start to finish,” he said. “The rules on free movement have got to be changed — or the way the rules operate has got to change.” Sunday Times
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    viewcode said:

    AnneJGP said:



    I rather feel you are facing some stiff competition .....

    Damn right (elbows everybody aside)

    It depends on what you mean by "plus". "Infinity" is not a number. You can't use arithmetic on things that aren't numbers. So if by "plus" you mean "add" then "infinity plus x" is meaningless: it's like saying "cake plus x"

    As you have noted ("...Cantorian terms...") there are ways of handling infinities. But arithmetic is not one of them
    FPT, and pedantry is the best way to start a new year...
    Infinity plus one is almost the first way I was introduced to multiple infinities and transfinites.

    It went something like this: when you have an uncountably large number, you can prove it's the same as another uncountably large number if you can map one to the other on an exactly one-to-one correspondence (the same you you can prove the equality of two numbers: the number of people in the theatre and the number of tickets sold by being able to map one to the other on a one-to-one basis).

    You can prove the infinite set N of natural numbers (1,2,3,4,...) has the same (infinite) number of members as the set W of whole numbers (0,1,2,3,4...), even though there is exactly one more member of the latter (ie "0"), because you can map one to another by the process n=n+1
    (ie map each member of the set of whole numbers to the n+1th member of the set of natural numbers; as they go on for ever, there is a one-to-one correspondence).

    That is: infinity = infinity+1
    You can carry out the same process for any number greater than 1 in the n=n+1 mapping (ie n=n=377727) and, indeed, for any number x where x is finite.

    You can even do it where x is infinite, because the set Z of integers (..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...) can be mapped one to one to the preceding one by mapping all negative numbers of Z to odd positive numbers of W and all positive members of Z to even members of W. Or, to put it another way, infinity plus (the same) infinity = infinity; or infinity x 2 = infinity.

    By expansion, you can substitute any finite number in for that "2".

    You can keep playing around like this until you get to the set of all Real numbers (ie including irrational numbers) which cannot, under any mapping, be mapped one-to-one. There are therefore more members of the set R than the set Z and you have a different and greater infinity. Arithmetically, 2 to the power of infinity (where "infinity" substitutes for the transfinite number equating to the smallest infinity and the infinity we've been discussing) equals this greater infinity.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Has anyone coined the phrase 'Trumputin' yet to refer to the incoming POTUS. If not, I'm claiming it.
  • [frpenkridge 9.40am] In other words, Sir Keir understands that Labour has to choose between attracting white voters and attracting non-white voters. Perhaps JC should just kick him out of the Party...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    I think it's cyclical more than progression and regression.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    viewcode said:

    AnneJGP said:



    I rather feel you are facing some stiff competition .....

    Damn right (elbows everybody aside)

    It depends on what you mean by "plus". "Infinity" is not a number. You can't use arithmetic on things that aren't numbers. So if by "plus" you mean "add" then "infinity plus x" is meaningless: it's like saying "cake plus x"

    As you have noted ("...Cantorian terms...") there are ways of handling infinities. But arithmetic is not one of them
    FPT, and pedantry is the best way to start a new year...
    Infinity plus one is almost the first way I was introduced to multiple infinities and transfinites.

    It went something like this: when you have an uncountably large number, you can prove it's the same as another uncountably large number if you can map one to the other on an exactly one-to-one correspondence (the same you you can prove the equality of two numbers: the number of people in the theatre and the number of tickets sold by being able to map one to the other on a one-to-one basis).

    You can prove the infinite set N of natural numbers (1,2,3,4,...) has the same (infinite) number of members as the set W of whole numbers (0,1,2,3,4...), even though there is exactly one more member of the latter (ie "0"), because you can map one to another by the process n=n+1
    (ie map each member of the set of whole numbers to the n+1th member of the set of natural numbers; as they go on for ever, there is a one-to-one correspondence).

    That is: infinity = infinity+1
    You can carry out the same process for any number greater than 1 in the n=n+1 mapping (ie n=n=377727) and, indeed, for any number x where x is finite.

    You can even do it where x is infinite, because the set Z of integers (..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...) can be mapped one to one to the preceding one by mapping all negative numbers of Z to odd positive numbers of W and all positive members of Z to even members of W. Or, to put it another way, infinity plus (the same) infinity = infinity; or infinity x 2 = infinity.

    By expansion, you can substitute any finite number in for that "2".

    You can keep playing around like this until you get to the set of all Real numbers (ie including irrational numbers) which cannot, under any mapping, be mapped one-to-one. There are therefore more members of the set R than the set Z and you have a different and greater infinity. Arithmetically, 2 to the power of infinity (where "infinity" substitutes for the transfinite number equating to the smallest infinity and the infinity we've been discussing) equals this greater infinity.
    Thank you.

    As bracing as the chilly weather outside but far more enjoyable.

    Happy New Year you lot.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    HNY all.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    "The shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, has called for a “fundamental rethink of immigration rules” in remarks that appear to put him at odds with the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer warned that politicians were in danger of ignoring the reasons why people voted to leave the European Union and that those concerns included immigration. “There should be a fundamental rethink of im­migration rules from start to finish,” he said. “The rules on free movement have got to be changed — or the way the rules operate has got to change.” Sunday Times

    Trying to shut the EU stable door when the horse has bolted. The rules on free movement are going to be changed - we're leaving.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    I knew this year was going to be better....

    Ive just done some detective work and 'Flag' and 'Off topic' can only be seen by clicking your own symbol. So even if you're in the habit of doing that you are the only one likely to see it. it's like a private rebuke. So I'm thinking 'what kind of a nutter does that' and the answer is there are loads of them!

    I'm starting to wonder whether this is the sort of place you make your excuses and back out of quietly!!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    'Labour politician says something sensible - puts them at odds with Corbyn' seems to be a recurring theme.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    My pc has changed all its settings and fonts and its going to take ages to sort out. Question was it my cat or has Microsoft done another poisonous update?
  • @tlg86 - Why is Meghan Markle's faith a thorny issue? It used to be the case that marrying a Catholic disqualified you from succession to the throne but that changed with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Harry would still be fifth in the line of succession. However, if his children were Catholics they would not be eligible to inherit the throne.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Roger said:

    I knew this year was going to be better....

    Ive just done some detective work and 'Flag' and 'Off topic' can only be seen by clicking your own symbol. So even if you're in the habit of doing that you are the only one likely to see it. it's like a private rebuke. So I'm thinking 'what kind of a nutter does that' and the answer is there are loads of them!

    I'm starting to wonder whether this is the sort of place you make your excuses and back out of quietly!!

    I'd make an educated guess that the admins can see them.

    Also: it can be fairly easy to press the 'flag' and 'Off topic' links easily, especially when 'Quote' was in a similar position. I've definitely clicked on them accidentally many more times than I meant to.

    Or perhaps that's just my lack of dexterity. :blush:
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    This is deeply worrying "Almost all the Muslim witnesses requested, and were granted, anonymity."

    And now they're being named and their confidential witness statements handed over to those they blew the whistle on. Who'd come forward now?

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trojan-horse-school-witnesses-fear-for-safety-as-names-released-p5dmm3hwn
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2017

    "The shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, has called for a “fundamental rethink of immigration rules” in remarks that appear to put him at odds with the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer warned that politicians were in danger of ignoring the reasons why people voted to leave the European Union and that those concerns included immigration. “There should be a fundamental rethink of im­migration rules from start to finish,” he said. “The rules on free movement have got to be changed — or the way the rules operate has got to change.” Sunday Times

    Trying to shut the EU stable door when the horse has bolted. The rules on free movement are going to be changed - we're leaving.
    You're missing the point.

    It should be seen through the prism of internal Labour Party politics, not Brexit. It's a fairly easy area where Lab MPs can disagree with the leadership. With luck, it will escalate and spread to other areas.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    edited January 2017

    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    I would think that the reactionary 20% will survive due to a steady bolstering by Mrs Merkel's muslim migrants.
    I don't think the acceptance of gay couples and black relatives is cyclical - it feels like a permanent shift in attitudes, partly as people feel they've bigger things to worry about.

    An interesting point is why there isn't more of a backlash against Merkel in Germany - the Berlin attack seems to have had virtually no impact in the German polls, and the general 2016 trend has been for a modest CDU recovery. I think it's to some extent because the terror attacks are horrible but actually rare, and none of them related to Syrians, so the obvious speculation that ISIS would use the situation to bring in bombers seems to have been wrong. In terms of personal safety, the risk of being blown up by a terrorist remains close to zero, appalling though it is when it happens, so it's still a nasty news item rather than something experienced as personal menace. Germany's become a very stable country for obvious historical reasons, and populist parties struggle to get past the 15-20% available to the extremes in any country.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Clackers - I remember almost breaking my fingers...

    BBC Archive
    It's #popularvideosbbcarchivepostedin2016 (sure to trend) time! First up: clackers from 05/10/1971 https://t.co/X1eDIKnR18
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Miss Plato, not a subscriber but that sounds very concerning (as well as being immoral).
  • Roger said:

    I knew this year was going to be better....

    Ive just done some detective work and 'Flag' and 'Off topic' can only be seen by clicking your own symbol. So even if you're in the habit of doing that you are the only one likely to see it. it's like a private rebuke. So I'm thinking 'what kind of a nutter does that' and the answer is there are loads of them!

    I'm starting to wonder whether this is the sort of place you make your excuses and back out of quietly!!

    Calm yourself, Roger. It's not a right wing witch hunt against you, as much as you want it to be. It's probably just fat fingers on skinny phone or tablet keyboards.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Happy New Year to one & all!

    Just re-watching The Crown - some cracking political stuff over the manoeuvres to get Churchill to stand down. The second episode, where he more than rises to the occasion of delivering the king's eulogy to Eden's evident disappointment, while Queen Mary offers her grand daughter the deepest of curtseys then looks Elizabeth straight in the eye as she rises, is great TV.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    I would think that the reactionary 20% will survive due to a steady bolstering by Mrs Merkel's muslim migrants.
    I don't think the acceptance of gay couples and black relatives is cyclical - it feels like a permanent shift in attitudes, partly as people feel they've bigger things to worry about.

    An interesting point is why there isn't more of a backlash against Merkel in Germany - the Berlin attack seems to have had virtually no impact in the German polls, and the general 2016 trend has been for a modest CDU recovery. I think it's to some extent because the terror attacks are horrible but actually rare, and none of them related to Syrians, so the obvious speculation that ISIS would use the situation to bring in bombers seems to have been wrong. In terms of personal safety, the risk of being blown up by a terrorist remains close to zero, appalling though it is when it happens, so it's still a nasty news item rather than something experienced as personal menace. Germany's become a very stable country for obvious historical reasons, and populist parties struggle to get past the 15-20% available to the extremes in any country.

    Happy New Year Nick.

    Are you a Starmerite or a Jezzer over Lab and immigration?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    @tlg86 - Why is Meghan Markle's faith a thorny issue? It used to be the case that marrying a Catholic disqualified you from succession to the throne but that changed with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Harry would still be fifth in the line of succession. However, if his children were Catholics they would not be eligible to inherit the throne.

    Good point, I'd forgotten about that.
  • Globally, we've never had it so good and it's only our focus on every bit of bad news anywhere on the planet that prevents us from recognising it.

    Most people don't spend most of the time thinking globally so that is a rather meaningless "we".

    Also the first of the lanyado charts ends in 2014 and while it shows a liberal consensus on three hand picked issues has developed, not that it holds on all issues. A question about attitudes to freedom of movement or Islam might not show a similar trend.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    @tlg86 - Why is Meghan Markle's faith a thorny issue? It used to be the case that marrying a Catholic disqualified you from succession to the throne but that changed with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Harry would still be fifth in the line of succession. However, if his children were Catholics they would not be eligible to inherit the throne.

    Is it specifically Catholics, or just not CoE?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    LOL just listened to Usain Bolt on MUTV calling up and the dopey presenter not realising who it was and treating him like some loon who'd got hold of his parents' phone card.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Luckyguy1983 Posts: 6,829

    Roger said:
    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    "I think it's cyclical more than progression and regression."

    There's no evidence in the graph of any significant cycles over the 30+ years.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Roger said:

    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    I would think that the reactionary 20% will survive due to a steady bolstering by Mrs Merkel's muslim migrants.
    I don't think the acceptance of gay couples and black relatives is cyclical - it feels like a permanent shift in attitudes, partly as people feel they've bigger things to worry about.

    I tend to disagree - though I should probably stress that on a personal note, I fully accept gay couples and would welcome new members of the family of any race.

    In my opinion, it is a big cycle.

    When society is faced with hardship and privation, strong organisation and 'rules', typified by those found in world religions, are to be commonly found. This is imo because they are rules of survival. If you take the Israelites in the OT, a nomadic people struggling to find the promised land, they had very strong rules. No men sleeping with men, but also no eating shellfish or cloven-hooved animals, strict marital fidelity, and all the others. You can argue these rules were sent by God to help maintain the race, or argue the other way, they were arrived at by trial and error, and were then given 'God's' seal of approval, depending on your spiritual beliefs.

    Then society gets rich, and fat, with no immediate hardships, and the rules of society become less important, especially the old morality. People forget even the folk memory of hardship and privation - take the baby boomer generation as an example. The importance of 'the tribe' is totally forgotten. As a consequence, what happens is decline, those old Victorian fears of 'degeneration' - and what they would have recognised as such is all around us. Then in many instances you get collapse, and so the cycle continues.

    Therefore I don't really look upon most attitudes to minorities as representing progress - unless I feel they represent a genuine increase in the universal human virtues of kindness and tolerance. Which stuff like people being taken to court for not baking a cake obviously isn't. That stuff is just fashion - another turn of the circle.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    @initforthemoney

    It's unlikely that attitudes towards immigration or crime and punishment or human rights laws have shown the same progression. And, of course, public opinion became more eurosceptic over the same period (not that that can easily be fitted into a left/right, liberal/conservative axis).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Greetings all, and hoping for much more mellowness here in 2017.

    Let's hope click-bait threads died with the first bong of the New Year.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Luckyguy1983 Posts: 6,829

    Roger said:
    Logial Song

    Very interesting graphs. Excluding monarchy (which isn't to do with being liberal) all the pointers to a much more liberal society end around 20%. I suspect these are now UKIPers. The interesting question is whether this 20% will continue its progress or whether it's now reached a reactionary hard core

    "I think it's cyclical more than progression and regression."

    There's no evidence in the graph of any significant cycles over the 30+ years.

    As you will see from my post above, I am talking about much longer timescales.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    stodge said:

    The sovereignty of the individual is fine but it could only be unlimited in a society with unlimited resources. In a finite world, resources have to be prioritised - it's not unreasonable (I would argue) for the state to seek to inform and educate people on health and for society as a whole to consider whether those who, in the face of that information, choose to make lifestyle choices which negatively impact on their health (and the health of those around them) shouldn't have to take some measure of responsibility for their actions.

    I don't disagree with that, but its not what a sugar tax (for example) does. Such a tax means you are, at least notionally, taking responsibility for anyone that gets health issues from eating too much unrefined sugar, which might not be you. It would be more honest to charge people for treatment of those issues. In the same way as I would say that people that want to go climbing mountains should be required to take mandatory insurance against needing to call out mountain rescue, or needing to be medevaced by helicopter, it absolutely should not be up to the taxpayer to subsidise peoples reckless lifestyle choices, but it similar should not be up to the government to prevent them from doing it.

    It interesting that the Liberals appear to be supporting the various government prudery changes on what people can watch on TV and online.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    stodge said:

    The sovereignty of the individual is fine but it could only be unlimited in a society with unlimited resources. In a finite world, resources have to be prioritised - it's not unreasonable (I would argue) for the state to seek to inform and educate people on health and for society as a whole to consider whether those who, in the face of that information, choose to make lifestyle choices which negatively impact on their health (and the health of those around them) shouldn't have to take some measure of responsibility for their actions.

    I don't disagree with that, but its not what a sugar tax (for example) does. Such a tax means you are, at least notionally, taking responsibility for anyone that gets health issues from eating too much unrefined sugar, which might not be you. It would be more honest to charge people for treatment of those issues. In the same way as I would say that people that want to go climbing mountains should be required to take mandatory insurance against needing to call out mountain rescue, or needing to be medevaced by helicopter, it absolutely should not be up to the taxpayer to subsidise peoples reckless lifestyle choices, but it similar should not be up to the government to prevent them from doing it.

    It interesting that the Liberals appear to be supporting the various government prudery changes on what people can watch on TV and online.
    Medicine is not sufficiently advanced to diagnose the degree to which someone's condition is due to refined sugar. This could never be enforced. Therefore taxing the stuff itself is fairer - if someone consumes it in health-undermining quantities, they will pay more.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Thanks Plato. We shall see :). The Vanilla fairies seem to have stolen the quote button. Clearly the world is going to rack and ruin already! Is it too early to blame Brexit?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    stodge said:

    The sovereignty of the individual is fine but it could only be unlimited in a society with unlimited resources. In a finite world, resources have to be prioritised - it's not unreasonable (I would argue) for the state to seek to inform and educate people on health and for society as a whole to consider whether those who, in the face of that information, choose to make lifestyle choices which negatively impact on their health (and the health of those around them) shouldn't have to take some measure of responsibility for their actions.

    I don't disagree with that, but its not what a sugar tax (for example) does. Such a tax means you are, at least notionally, taking responsibility for anyone that gets health issues from eating too much unrefined sugar, which might not be you. It would be more honest to charge people for treatment of those issues. In the same way as I would say that people that want to go climbing mountains should be required to take mandatory insurance against needing to call out mountain rescue, or needing to be medevaced by helicopter, it absolutely should not be up to the taxpayer to subsidise peoples reckless lifestyle choices, but it similar should not be up to the government to prevent them from doing it.

    It interesting that the Liberals appear to be supporting the various government prudery changes on what people can watch on TV and online.
    Owning a horse requires public liability insurance. I'd no idea until I took on a couple of rescues.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Roger said:

    I knew this year was going to be better....

    Ive just done some detective work and 'Flag' and 'Off topic' can only be seen by clicking your own symbol. So even if you're in the habit of doing that you are the only one likely to see it. it's like a private rebuke. So I'm thinking 'what kind of a nutter does that' and the answer is there are loads of them!

    I'm starting to wonder whether this is the sort of place you make your excuses and back out of quietly!!

    Don't hit your arse on the door on the way out
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    Roger said:

    I knew this year was going to be better....

    Ive just done some detective work and 'Flag' and 'Off topic' can only be seen by clicking your own symbol. So even if you're in the habit of doing that you are the only one likely to see it. it's like a private rebuke. So I'm thinking 'what kind of a nutter does that' and the answer is there are loads of them!

    I'm starting to wonder whether this is the sort of place you make your excuses and back out of quietly!!

    Calm yourself, Roger. It's not a right wing witch hunt against you, as much as you want it to be. It's probably just fat fingers on skinny phone or tablet keyboards.
    TFS, I rather think it is due to him being a complete T****
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Roger, I've got 39 off-topic thingummyjigs. I wouldn't take them personally.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    On topic 20/1 not the worst bet in the world, I wouldn't want to back 1/20 the other side.. as for getting a bet on with Betway, no chance. But their ads are funny!

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Good morning all, and Happy New Year 2017 :)

    May the new year bring health, wealth and prosperity to all, especially if 2017's winnings are anything like 2016's.

    +1 for the comments about @AndyJS and his magic spreadsheet on the last thread, the man who will never have to buy himself a drink at PB gatherings ever again!
  • Mr. Roger, I've got 39 off-topic thingummyjigs. I wouldn't take them personally.

    It's so easy to accidentally flag a post if you're scrolling left handed on a smartphone.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    I often hit the flag/off topic button due to fat finger syndrome on my phone. I do try to remove the flag when I see I notice I have done it, but a few may have slipped through.

    Less of an issue now that the quote button has gone.. grumble grumble.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Mr. Roger, I've got 39 off-topic thingummyjigs. I wouldn't take them personally.

    I see them as a badge of honour. The more the better.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. D, I think I got a lot from Mr. Eagles by mistake. He was looking for the "Please teach me more classical history, sir" button.

    Mr. Pubgoer, I remember others saying likewise.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Roger, I've got 39 off-topic thingummyjigs. I wouldn't take them personally.

    I see them as a badge of honour. The more the better.
    I want to know what points are. You have 9, I (for some reason) have 12...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    29 off topic points here.

    2,900 would be more accurate :)
This discussion has been closed.