Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Barrister]

Anyone else surprised by how low the LGBT+ percentages are?

I am, perhaps because I grew up with the Kinsey approximation of 10%

The Kinsey 10% figure was always nonsense.  It was selected as a more political statement (10% is large enough to be significant, yet not large enough to be overly threatening) than a figure supported by science.

There can still be some argument over numbers, but 3% as being LGBT seems more likely to be accurate.

I have liked exit polling for this for the last 20 years or so.  Since it's just one of the questions and really not the most important question, I think you tend to get better data.

2020: 7% https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results
2016: 5% https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/
2012: 5% https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2012/results/president/exit-polls.html
2008: 4% https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008
2004: 4% https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
2000: 4% https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2000

Only 66.8% of eligible voters turned out in 2020.

I can see an argument that LGBT adults are more likely to be politically engaged and thus vote.

But it also obscures the most important point - that equal rights shouldn't depend on having "enough" people.

[ulmont]

I can see an argument that LGBT adults are more likely to be politically engaged and thus vote.

I can see an argument that LGBT adults are more likely to be younger and politically disaffected and thus not vote. 

Accordingly I think absent more targeted data on that specific point it's not worth considering, particularly in light of the fact that the 2020 7% number is exactly (with rounding) Gallup's most recent survey: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx

But it also obscures the most important point - that equal rights shouldn't depend on having "enough" people.

The point at hand was "Anyone else surprised by how low the LGBT+ percentages are?".  If we want to always discuss "the most important point", expect a lot more theology and philosophy to come up.

[Josquius]

So with 7% reporting as lgbt that would suggest to me the 10% figure for LGBT people is right afterall - still a fair few closet cases, people living in denial, then as Sheilbh mentioned historic disproportionate aids deaths.

[Barrister]

So with 7% reporting as lgbt that would suggest to me the 10% figure for LGBT people is right afterall - still a fair few closet cases, people living in denial, then as Sheilbh mentioned historic disproportionate aids deaths.

That would suggest 1 in 3 gays are closeted / living in denial.  In 2022 in the west that seems unlikely.  And by the way, if you're actually living in denial, which is to say you have gay urges but don't act on them and don't identify as gay, you get counted as straight anyways.  There's no way to measure those people (short of my favourite bit of weird scientific kit, the penile plethismograph).

But anyways, back to Kinsey.  It's a topic I looked into once or twice but am no expert.  So here's on of the first hits I could find on the topic (and note the source):

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

So going back to Kinsey himself, he A: never counted people as just gay or straight (he used a 7 point scale), but more importantly B: he never claimed to do a representative sample of the population.

The 10% figure doesn't even come from Kinsey.  A scientist in the 70s looked at Kinsey's date and came up with 10% (actually 13% for men, 7% for women).  It was never really supported by the data.

So anyways, in trying to figure out what percentage is LGBT it gets murky fast.  Is it how you publicly  identify (if so what about college women who say they're bi but date only men)?  Is it who you have sex with (so again what about people who haven't engaged in sex for some time)?  Is it who you're physically attracted to no matter who you otherwise say (how do you measure that)?

And that's without trying to count "Queer" as an identity...

So anyways, don't use 10% as a starting point.  As I understand it most suggested numbers are more like 1-2% up to 6-7%.  And it has definitely changed over time - whether from people just being more free to come out of the closet, or from people being more willing to explore their sexuality than in the past.

So who knows maybe the number will wind up being 10%.  But the science so far doesn't really suggest it.

(and like I said - it fundamentally doesn't matter anyways.  Just an interesting debate).

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think the best number we have in the UK is the census - because it's not a sample or anything like that. It was a question on a form completed by 97% of the population - and about 93% of people answered these questions.

It won't be perfect and it isn't going to be everyone, though it didn't include a space for people to put their own description of the sexuality or gender identity (112,000 responded pansexual, 28,000 asexual and 15,000 queer - which makes me wonder a little about the cut-through of queer theorising). But it did still ask people sexual orientation (and, separately, gender identity) which is, as you say, very different than a Kinsey scale.

One problem, not with the form but with any census on this question is that about 20% of people in the UK are under 16 and while I think coming out young is increasingly common I don't think it's the norm so there will be many LGBT+ people in that group.

But I think it's the best we've got for now. And it'll start being broken down by age and gender in the next fortnight - there's much excitement about finally confirming the lesbian capital of Britain. And there are many gays in data visualisation so we've already had the proportion gay v average rent scatter charts

[Sheilbh]

Census on qualification:


Level 1 is one to four GCSEs (or equivalent). Level 2 is five or more GCSEs (or equivalent). Level 3 is two or more A levels (or equivalent). Level 4 is Higher National Certificate, Higher National Diploma, Bachelor's degree or post-grad qualifications.

As ever, there's a map: https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/choropleth/education - I'd love to know more about the industries those apprenticeships are in. On the map you can see a few obvious ones like Barrow-in-Furness which builds Britain's nuclear subs. Lots on the east coast generally which makes me wonder if some of that is off shore wind industry? But then others I've no idea.

[Sheilbh]

This all strikes me as fairly sensible - I think it's probably unlikely Sunak embraces bringing forward the phase out of gas heating, but maybe they'll relax rules so solar panels (on homes) don't require planning permission. But I think anything more ambitious will basically need a Labour government which already has more ambitious goals on energy transition:

Scrap planning rules for solar panels, says energy tsar
Net-zero report calls for a 'rooftop revolution'
Adam Vaughan, Environment Editor
Thursday January 12 2023, 5.50pm, The Times

Britain should launch a "rooftop revolution" and remove the need to obtain planning permission for solar panels, the government's net zero tsar has urged.

"We need the full-scale deployment of solar, including through a 'rooftop revolution' that removes the existing constraints and barriers to solar panel deployment across residential and commercial buildings in the UK," Chris Skidmore, the former science minister, said in a report.

There are about a million homes with solar panels, many of which were encouraged by generous incentives that started in 2010. However, installations stalled after subsidies were cut. Last week, MPs on the environment audit committee said solar power should be mandatory on all new homes by 2025.

Skidmore's report, highly anticipated by green groups, also said no more gas boilers should be sold in a decade's time to ensure Britain meets its climate change goals. Sale of homes that are not improved to energy efficiency band C should also be banned by 2033, it added.

Due to be published next week, a leaked review of whether the country's 2050 net zero goal is a burden on businesses concluded that the target was the "economic opportunity of the 21st century".

Skidmore, whose three-month review was announced by Liz Truss when she was prime minister, found that the average household could save between £400 and £6,000 a year through the move to net zero. Most of the savings would come from switching petrol and diesel for electric cars, with some from people also swapping boilers for heat pumps.

"The challenge for us now is 'not zero'. Not zero will be more of a burden than net zero. This is an economic opportunity, but it is also a huge economic risk to the UK if we can't keep up with other countries," Skidmore, a Conservative MP, said.

Skidmore said decarbonising homes was key, and called on ministers to legislate to create "gas-free homes" this parliament by banning the sale of new or replacement gas boilers by 2033, two years earlier than present plans.

He said low-income homes would need more grants to switch to heat pumps. These are effectively reverse fridges that can take warmth even from cold air, using a pump powered by electricity.

About 1.8 million gas boilers are sold annually in the UK, compared with only 55,000 heat pumps last year. The government has already set a target of installing 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028, and last year began offering households £5,000 to fit one.

"Bringing the mandate of no new gas boilers forward from 2035 to 2033 helps households save money by doing this sooner rather than later," Skidmore said. He argued that while it was only two years earlier, the date was "pragmatic" and based on conversations with the energy industry suggesting that 2030 would be unfeasible.

Skidmore said the earlier date would reduce the upfront price of the pumps. Air source heat pumps cost between £7,000 and £13,000, according to the Energy Saving Trust, though companies including Octopus Energy have pledged to drive down their cost.

Skidmore said he did not think the UK should embrace the idea of repurposing gas networks to run hydrogen boilers, a proposal that is being trialled at a pilot project at homes in Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.

"Hydrogen may be needed in certain localities, but overwhelmingly this should be a transformation to cheaper electricity," he said, adding that he wanted homes to become "gas-free" so they had no gas bill at all.

About 55 per cent of UK electricity generation is low-carbon at present, from wind farms and nuclear plants — a figure the government says must rise to 100 per cent by 2035. Labour is promising to do this by 2030 if it comes to power.

The report calls for homes with an energy performance certificate of D or worse, which can use 27 per cent more gas and 18 per cent more electricity on average than C-rated ones, to be banned from sale by 2033.

Juliet Phillips, a senior policy adviser at the E3G think tank, said: "The review is a major call to action to boost the energy efficiency of our homes and move away from expensive and polluting fossil heating, and towards clean technologies like heat pumps. While there are challenges, ultimately, keeping our homes warm isn't rocket science."

The review concluded that Britain's target of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050 was still the right one, warning that a delay carried "significant risk".

Shaun Spiers, executive director at the Green Alliance think tank, said: "This independent review should put an end once and for all to Conservative party infighting over net zero. The evidence is as clear as day."

[Gups]

Albeit with some exceptions, you don't generally need planning permission to install solar panels.

[Sheilbh]

Not remotely current - but story of Tory councillor, who was also a defence journalis, who was spying for the Czechs in the Cold War. It's always the Czechs for some reason

I feel like the codename "Slough" for someone who was the Tory group leader on Slough Council is not exactly Le Carre Mainly posted for his defence - plus ca change:

EXCLUSIVE: Tory councillor gave details on Britain and Nato's 'combat alert status' to Communist Czech spies during Cold War
    Tory councillor supplied Nato information to Communist spies in the Cold War
     Dexter Smith was given cash for information about chemical weapons
    Despite being opposed to Communism, he became 'addicted' to cash rewards
    Codenamed Slough, he passed on 24 reports during 'clandestine' meetings
By Tom Kelly Investigations Editor For The Daily Mail
Published: 17:33, 13 January 2023 | Updated: 17:53, 13 January 2023

A Tory councillor supplied information about Britain and Nato's 'combat alert status' to Communist spies for cash during the Cold War.

Dexter Smith, the Conservative group leader for Slough Council, supplemented his salary as a defence journalist in the Eighties by providing details about Nato nuclear planning summits, chemical weapons and the missile defence of Western Europe.

He also used his access to Government and military officials to supply reports on British involvement in the American Star Wars nuclear defence plan, the modernisation of Nato's command and control system and military equipment developments – which were used by enemy intelligence chiefs behind the Iron Curtain.

Despite being opposed to Communism, he became 'addicted' to cash rewards for his information and eventually determined 'to sell every word', according to newly declassified Security Service archives in Prague.

He also enjoyed being 'entertained in style' in high end restaurants by his handler and receiving gifts including cut glass in return for the 'reports and information he provides,' the files said.

Mr Smith was said to be susceptible to flattery and also cooperated to 'make himself feel good' because he liked to 'show off' his 'knowledge and expertise of military policy'.

Codenamed Slough, after his home town, he passed on 24 reports during 'clandestine' meetings in London and near Windsor Castle.

Mr Smith, who 'fully understood' who he was working for, was 'very careful' when handing over his reports and 'looks around to make sure he is not being watched,' according to the files.

The information he supplied was classed as 'non-public' or 'not easily available' and was to a 'large extent usable' and utilised by intelligence agencies in Czechoslovakia.

His paid cooperation only ended when his handler, Major Bedrich Kramar, an agent for the Czech Military Intelligence Agency who had the cover of air attache at its London embassy, was expelled from the UK for spying in September 1988.

Now retired and living in a semi-detached home outside Slough, Mr Smith accepted the file looked 'damning' but insisted he had done nothing wrong.

The married father of two said he never provided anything confidential and considered the cash he received payments for as 'freelance writing commissions'.

The reports he handed over also helped the West's deterrent by alerting the Communists to the capabilities Nato had without jeopardising them, he said.

Mr Smith also said he had told representatives from the British security services - from an agency he believed to be either MI5 or something similar - about the meetings and provided them all the information he supplied Kramar.

For their part, the Czech spies said in their initial exploration of Mr Smith that 'nothing adverse happened that would suggest the presence of enemy counter-intelligence'.

An analysis following Kramar's expulsion concluded – although it was impossible to rule out – 'we have seen no signs of [Mr Smith] being used as a dangle' by MI5.

Soviet state banquet

Mr Smith first met Kramer at a state banquet held at London's Soviet Embassy in September 1986, which was attended by military and civil diplomats and defence journalists. At the time the Czechoslovakian Military Intelligence Agency was a puppet of the KGB.

Mr Smith was living with his parents in Slough and worked as the strategic affairs editor of Defence magazine, which boasted their 'globe-trotting' journalist enjoyed 'unchallenged political access'.

To the Communist spymasters, this made him a valuable asset, as the files explained: 'The contact's job makes it possible for him to obtain and hand over information on the changes in Nato's and GB's armed forces combat alert status.

'He also gets sent as correspondent to closed meetings of Nato bodies and has access to non-public reports from these meetings.'

Following the initial contact, Kramer - referred to by his codename agent 718 in the files – began to make 'covert' contact with Mr Smith.

Amid concerns it might be a 'dangle' by the British secret service, the Czech handler insisted on 'security measures' for the 'clandestine meetings' including ordering Mr Smith to keep them secret, meeting at quiet times in restaurants with 'minimal chance of being overheard' and carefully watching Mr Smith as he arrived to 'make sure he was not being followed'.

Exploration

During an initial nine-month 'suitability assessment', Mr Smith handed over information on a range of defence issues, including Britain's involvement in the US Star Wars nuclear deterrent programme, 'technologies and space weapons' and the modernisation of the US strategic air force.

Another file noted: 'His possibilities as to obtaining this kind of information and his willingness to do so were checked at a meeting on 11 May 1987 when, immediately after receiving information at the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the planned meeting of the Group for Nuclear Planning, he taped it for the agent.'

A later file added Mr Smith was 'likely to have close contacts with holders of such confidential information' and once told his handler when set a task relating to a subject he didn't know enough about: 'I will ask around, I have friends in Nato.'

His handler did not detect the 'presence of enemy counter-intelligence' so the spy chiefs approved 'tightening our cooperation' with Mr Smith.

Cut glass and cash

Mr Smith's motive for cooperation with the agent and supplying information was 'mainly for financial reasons', the files allege.

His first reward in 1987 was a cut glass Bohemian crystal, worth around £100 at the time, which he said would make a nice present for his then girlfriend.

Payments then 'gradually changed to direct financial rewards' which were only given for 'information that was deemed useful' by his handler.

One file noted: 'When receiving envelopes with money in, [Mr Smith] did not seem particularly shy but looked around inconspicuously to make sure he was not being watched.

'He simply considered the money to be a reward for his informational help.'

On one occasion his handler 'tested' whether he was a double agent by offering the money in front of his colleagues during a meeting at his workplace.

Mr Smith looked 'scared' and told the agent 'he would deal with it outside his workplace.'

His handler concluded if he was being directed by the British security services 'he would most likely not been so worried about hiding his side income.'

As time went on there was an 'unwritten rule' that Mr Smith was 'regularly rewarded for supplied information but he never asked [for] information that was of no use to the agent.'

Mr Smith 'gradually got used to a side income' and from November 1986 to March 1988 received just over £1,000 in rewards and hospitality - nearly £3,000 in modern value. At this time he was earning £1,200 a month for his job.

On one occasion when his agent gave him half of what he had expected, Mr Smith was said to be 'not happy' and 'asked for an explanation'. However the following month he showed 'overt joy' when paid retrospectively for the information.

His handler believed this showed his 'growing addiction on financial rewards,' explaining he was counting on the cash and tried to 'sell every word'.

Fine dining and flattery

The files say: '[Mr Smith] liked dining in style and he used to be impressed by the agent's choice of high-class restaurants.

'An additional motive was Smith's self-satisfaction at being able to supply insightful information that did not compromise him in any way.

'He knew he was extremely knowledgeable on the required subject matter and was privy to information that no one else in the editorial office had access to and he made sure everyone else knew it.

'The agent encouraged him in this by making it obvious to him that he respected him as a real authority in his field.'

Source agent

By June 1988, the files note Mr Smith had 'observed security instructions and fulfilled tasks set' by his handler, and spy chiefs proposed his recruitment as a full 'source agent'.

It said that 'based on the reports and information handed over to us in the exploration stage' he had 'already proven his potential' in providing recorded information from closed MoD meetings about planned changes in the armed forces, training exercises and planned reinforcements of Nato's armed forces on the Central-European battleground.

He had also offered information on Nato's military strategy, the 'development and implementation' of new types of weapons, the outcome of Nato's summit meeting with regard to military policy and US influence on Nato's European military policy.

The day after an October 1987 MoD press conference, he supplied information and documents about Nato's planned exercise 'Certain Strike' – a mass practice to prepare for a potential attack on West Germany by the USSR and its Warsaw Pact Allies.

It said: '[Mr Smith] fully understands who he is working for.

'He is keeping his contact with the agent secret, follows the given security instructions, fulfils the set tasks relating to monitoring changes in combat alert status.

The document concluded: 'His cooperation is deliberate and he has been obtaining and supplying the required information relating to Nato's combat alert status on a long-term basis...

'We have not found anything adverse with regards to security that would prevent his recruitment as a source agent.'

Handler expelled

But, in September 1988, his handler Kramar was expelled from the UK for spying.

Apparently after he was told of his deportation - but before he had left the UK - Kramar had a last meeting with Mr Smith.

The files noted: 'We saw no signs suggesting a link between the deportation and the Slough case.

'[Mr Smith] did not show any changes in behaviour during the last regular meeting and agreed to carry on with cooperation with a different agent and supply information in return for money like before.'

Mr Smith said he had no recollection of this meeting and that it did not seem 'plausible'.

The Czechs did initially cut contact with Mr Smith for several months before spy chiefs decided to make approaches via a new agent to see if the journalist was happy to continue the arrangement.

But the tentative plan appeared to have run out of time, with the final dossier on Mr Smith in the Prague security archives dated 28 November 1989 – the date Communist rule in Czechoslovakia officially ended following the Velvet Revolution to overthrow dictatorship.

Professor Anthony Glees, an intelligence and security expert from the University of Buckingham, said it was no surprise that the Communist spies targeted journalists.

He said: 'A journalist is always a very important agent. They are trusted and have licence to ask questions of those in power and senior positions.

'Because it is their brief and subject, they know where to look for and dig out public information which others would not know how to find.'

As a general principle, MI5 will neither confirm nor deny whether someone has worked for or with them, even historically.

MI5 can use whatever lawful means necessary to gather information about a foreign intelligence service operating in the UK.

Also just the not very expensive greed that gets people to spy even against their own beliefs - just from recent conversation we had on spying (can't remember the context ).

[Sheilbh]

This STV interview doing the rounds:
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352

Not for the first time Sunak's political style and ability to pull it off basically seems like plausible mid-ranking cabinet minister from New Labour era.

[Tamas]

This STV interview doing the rounds:
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352

Not for the first time Sunak's political style and ability to pull it off basically seems like plausible mid-ranking cabinet minister from New Labour era.

This should be standard for all journalists.

[Sheilbh]

This should be standard for all journalists.

It's why PMs and other senior ministers don't do many interviews and prefer press conferences. Because it is fairly standard - it's definitely the Today programme or Newsnight style. I'm not always convinced by that Paxman/Humphrys style because I think it can become a performance (especially with Paxman) that just generates more heat than light. But there are times when it's deserved and I think especially any time a politician tries to use the "what people really care about is [insert today's talking point]"

But also I really enjoyed Liz Truss' disastrous decision to not do interviews with national political reporters and instead do a media round with local BBC radio stations. I think her team's assumption was that they're "lesser" journalists who wouldn't be a challenge. It turned into a day of going from one humiliating interview to another, because they're good journalists who also really deeply know their area. So instead of one bad interview with the BBC she did fifteen, bespoke bad interviews I think there's a bit of that going on here. I suspect Sunak did not prepare for an STV interview the way he would for a national political reporter. It's arrogant parochialism that any journalists worth their salt would be in Westminster.

I think it's a sign of how competent a politician is to either be able to give enough of an answer to the question to move or to competently pivot or weave their talking point for the day into their response. Sunak just isn't that great at it.

More generally though I think sometimes the journalists asking the questions aren't the right people, because they don't have the depth of knowledge to challenge. So part of why he can do this is it's a question about politics and he's a political reporters. When it comes to policy issues, I think political reporters are often out of their depth and know less than the politician they're interviewing (Andrew Neil is an example of an exception because he does fewer interviews and really prepares for them). I thought it was really clear during covid when the local journalists, science reporters and health reporters I think were asking the best questions and doing the best job - while, say, Robert Peston was focusing on whether you could eat a scotch egg in a pub.

I think one of the issues with our press is that too much is done through the political correspondents/Westminster/Whitehall reporters. A consequence of that, I think, is that they understand issues purely through a political lens because that's their job and their sources etc. But also I don't think they have the depth to challenge. I feel like it's maybe justified for the PM or generic MPs, but if the Chancellor wants to do a media round it feels like they should be getting questions from an economics correspondent like Faisal Islam not (though I think she's great) Beth Rigby.

[Tonitrus]

This STV interview doing the rounds:
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352

Not for the first time Sunak's political style and ability to pull it off basically seems like plausible mid-ranking cabinet minister from New Labour era.

This should be standard for all journalists.

Don't agree.  Is Sunak blatantly ignoring/dodging his question?  Absolutely.  Is there a fine line where the journalist expressing appropriate outrage that his question* is being so nakedly dodged, but continues to incessantly whine about that fact to the point that both are being absured?  Yep.

*It was a pretty terrible question too.  It wasn't so much a question as a demand to accept his assertion (the "de facto mandate") and then argue against it.

[Jacob]

Interesting @sheilbh. Sounds like this Smith spy isn't facing any legal repercussions?

[Sheilbh]

Interesting @sheilbh. Sounds like this Smith spy isn't facing any legal repercussions?

From what I've seen - no. Although there is form for this. He sounds relatively low impact as a foreign agent - but not nothing.

If you look at Melita Norwood for example. She was an ideological communist who was recruited as an agend by the NKVD in the thirties. She then got a job as secretary to the head of a research institute that was a big part of Britain and Canada's nuclear research program in the 40s. She was passing information about Britain's nuclear programs to the Soviets right up until she retired. Over her life she was given various orders of this and that by the Soviets.

She was uncovered in the late 90s as a really significant spy (and Britain had a few). According to the Mitrokhin archive she was more valuable than the Cambridge Five. She wasn't prosecuted. In the end her story was loosely the basis for a very sympathetic Judi Dench film where she's portrayed as twinkly and idealistic and mainly motivated by a desire to see a non-nuclear world. She might well have been very idealistic but when your idealism doesn't stop at the purges, 1956 or 1968 I'm not sure it's a particularly sympathetic trait.

I tend to be a bit less sympathetic and more robust in my views of people who were spying for the Soviets () but I'd be very surprised if he's prosecuted. I think it probably is more likely that he gets an ITV comedy of errors made about him starring, say, Paddy Considine in a few years