TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
Not in Africa so much, most African nations have 3-6 children on average per woman
Yes, but they used to be even higher.
Pretty much all of Africa is where SE Asia was twenty years ago, and is on exactly the same path.
The Libs are now so long on BX (12) that they are almost worth a saver, lest the unvarnished propaganda we've been subjected to by @theakes all week proves to contain a grain of truth.
I see no good evidenced-based reason why the Lib Dems should go out so far so fast today. Even if someone has (very naughtily) let on about postal vote returns, these are difficult to verify with any accuracy as they're all done upside-down and there's no idea about relative (or indeed absolute) turnout until the count, so such a leak would be unreliable as well as illegal.
I wondered whether it is more to do with hanging round polling stations and getting a feel for how things are going.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Where couples do have children it is also increasingly just 1 or at most 2, especially in the West.
Certainly more women put careers first, 50 even 25 years ago many women left work in their early 30s when they had children and never went back, certainly full time and the husband was the main bread winner expecte to have the job and career. Leaving it too late to have children also makes it more difficult.
Women are also more fussy, apps give them wider choice rather than settling for the guy down the road but at the end of the day there are still only so many men to go round and hence we also have more angry incels too.
There need to be more tax breaks and transfers between spouses so women who want to stay at home with children can and we could increase child benefits for the first 2 children too
If the report is correct, your first paragraph is not correct. If you consider only the size of families - i.e. you disregard childless people - family size isn't much different from a generation ago. But there's a much larger proportion of childless adults.
To solutions: myfavoured solution is that of the French - that is, you add to your tax free allowance for every child you have. But that could be because I would benefit from it.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
Not in Africa so much, most African nations have 3-6 children on average per woman
What I said was "But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world."
Which is true. Even in Africa.
Birth rates are lower now than they used to be. That is what is meant by the word "dropping".
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
More than "Very large majorities to overturn". Mid Beds would be the largest-ever Westminster majority overturned at a by-election*, if the Tories lose.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
Tiv and Hon 24,239 Richmond Park 23,015 Christchurch 23,015 (apparently a tie???) North Shropshire 22,949
So yes it would be a new record by a few hundred.
Christchurch looks like the one to beat 23,015 overturned and new majority of 16,427.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
Not in Africa so much, most African nations have 3-6 children on average per woman
Yes, but they used to be even higher.
Pretty much all of Africa is where SE Asia was twenty years ago, and is on exactly the same path.
The Digested, digested: The film is "Birthgap - Childless World (part 1)" directed by Stephen J Shaw. The protestors considered the film's core message (women are leaving having a child too late with deleritous results) as antifeminist. People divided on culture war lines, arguments were had, the film was cancelled and then shown, nobody died.
Ten Words Or Less: PEOPLE ARE UPSET.
These people will be running the country in 20 years !
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
Two demand-side measures. How about a supply-side one?
Encourage men to be more charming.
Like most things, I'm sure this is a problem which can be solved by uninventing the smartphone.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Where couples do have children it is also increasingly just 1 or at most 2, especially in the West.
Certainly more women put careers first, 50 even 25 years ago many women left work in their early 30s when they had children and never went back, certainly full time and the husband was the main bread winner expecte to have the job and career. Leaving it too late to have children also makes it more difficult.
Women are also more fussy, apps give them wider choice rather than settling for the guy down the road but at the end of the day there are still only so many men to go round and hence we also have more angry incels too.
There need to be more tax breaks and transfers between spouses so women who want to stay at home with children can and we could increase child benefits for the first 2 children too
If the report is correct, your first paragraph is not correct. If you consider only the size of families - i.e. you disregard childless people - family size isn't much different from a generation ago. But there's a much larger proportion of childless adults.
To solutions: myfavoured solution is that of the French - that is, you add to your tax free allowance for every child you have. But that could be because I would benefit from it.
In every country except one, birth rates decline with education levels. The better educated a woman is, the less likely they are to have children.
Except in France, where female university graduates have birth rates a smidgen above 2, and it is less well educated french women (who benefit less from those tax breaks) who have fewer kids.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
Some Labour people I follow on social media with their ear to the ground seem quite bullish on Mid-Beds (and Tamworth) - alledging a good ground game in both seats - but I'm not sure I have the confidence to place a bet on either. Very large majorities to overturn. Tamworth seems the more significant seat really with General Election implications.
I'm not convinced on the Lib Dems for Mid Beds - they haven't followed their usual tactics realeasing 'internal polling' numbers throughout the campaign saying it's close.
So probably leaning Lab gain Tamworth and Con hold Mid Beds.
More than "Very large majorities to overturn". Mid Beds would be the largest-ever Westminster majority overturned at a by-election*, if the Tories lose.
* Though I don't know of any majority larger than 24,664 overturned at a general election either. Blair didn't manage it in 1997 and none of SLab's losses in 2015 had majorities that big, IIRC. It's possible that 1945 or 1931 might have thrown up an extreme case though.
Tiv and Hon 24,239 Richmond Park 23,015 Christchurch 23,015 (apparently a tie???) North Shropshire 22,949
So yes it would be a new record by a few hundred.
Christchurch looks like the one to beat 23,015 overturned and new majority of 16,427.
The record pre-Tiverton & Honiton was Liverpool Wavertree (1935), where the 1931 Tory majority was 23,972.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
Wavertree remained Conservative until the seat was abolished in 1979. It now has an even larger Labour majority.
That said, it's not the past where they do things differently, it's Liverpool.
The shifts in Liverpool's political allegiance are incredible, as in places like Manchester, Hornsey, Streatham, Brighton, albeit, for different reasons.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Where couples do have children it is also increasingly just 1 or at most 2, especially in the West.
Certainly more women put careers first, 50 even 25 years ago many women left work in their early 30s when they had children and never went back, certainly full time and the husband was the main bread winner expecte to have the job and career. Leaving it too late to have children also makes it more difficult.
Women are also more fussy, apps give them wider choice rather than settling for the guy down the road but at the end of the day there are still only so many men to go round and hence we also have more angry incels too.
There need to be more tax breaks and transfers between spouses so women who want to stay at home with children can and we could increase child benefits for the first 2 children too
If the report is correct, your first paragraph is not correct. If you consider only the size of families - i.e. you disregard childless people - family size isn't much different from a generation ago. But there's a much larger proportion of childless adults.
To solutions: myfavoured solution is that of the French - that is, you add to your tax free allowance for every child you have. But that could be because I would benefit from it.
This was my favoured approach (essentially throw money at the problem), but the Guardian article I can't find a link to claimed to have looked into this, and concluded that such measures didn't make a difference. Tax incentives are kinda immaterial if you're still looking for a long-term partner to have children with.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Where couples do have children it is also increasingly just 1 or at most 2, especially in the West.
Certainly more women put careers first, 50 even 25 years ago many women left work in their early 30s when they had children and never went back, certainly full time and the husband was the main bread winner expecte to have the job and career. Leaving it too late to have children also makes it more difficult.
Women are also more fussy, apps give them wider choice rather than settling for the guy down the road but at the end of the day there are still only so many men to go round and hence we also have more angry incels too.
There need to be more tax breaks and transfers between spouses so women who want to stay at home with children can and we could increase child benefits for the first 2 children too
If the report is correct, your first paragraph is not correct. If you consider only the size of families - i.e. you disregard childless people - family size isn't much different from a generation ago. But there's a much larger proportion of childless adults.
To solutions: myfavoured solution is that of the French - that is, you add to your tax free allowance for every child you have. But that could be because I would benefit from it.
In every country except one, birth rates decline with education levels. The better educated a woman is, the less likely they are to have children.
Except in France, where female university graduates have birth rates a smidgen above 2, and it is less well educated french women (who benefit less from those tax breaks) who have fewer kids.
Mrs. Cookie certainly deserves a tax break. Or any sort of break, really.
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
Today would only be the third vote, which is still way behind the 15 it took in January.
That said, I can't help but notice that if the House doesn't elect a Speaker today (which it won't), it will only be the fifth time in the 234-year history of Congress that it's take 4+ days to elect a Speaker. Three of those instances were in the lead-up to the Civil War; the other two will have been this year.
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Reminds me of this article I read the other day by Mary Wakefield, Dominic Cummings' wife.
"Mary Wakefield I regret not having more children"
Only Lib Dems, Labour (Nick Palmer) and True and Fair telling this morning in Flitwick.
Labour are not collecting polling numbers, just being friendly outside the polling station.
They must be relying on a full knockup.
Both Labour and Lib Dem offices were busy as I passed.
Conservative and Labour (Rachel Reaves) were knocking up in the same village as me.
Lots of hard work from all quarters so turnout could be higher than expected.
I am surprised that a party with a serious chance is not collecting polling numbers everywhere.
Its a fools errand. You won't get everyone's polling number on their way into the polling station. Have your promises and knock them out. Focus on your own promises, send people into polling stations to ask for overall numbers to gauge turnout, adjust where you are sending your troops as the day goes on based on turnout vs non-contacted promises.
Only Lib Dems, Labour (Nick Palmer) and True and Fair telling this morning in Flitwick.
Labour are not collecting polling numbers, just being friendly outside the polling station.
They must be relying on a full knockup.
Both Labour and Lib Dem offices were busy as I passed.
Conservative and Labour (Rachel Reaves) were knocking up in the same village as me.
Lots of hard work from all quarters so turnout could be higher than expected.
I am surprised that a party with a serious chance is not collecting polling numbers everywhere.
Its a fools errand. You won't get everyone's polling number on their way into the polling station. Have your promises and knock them out. Focus on your own promises, send people into polling stations to ask for overall numbers to gauge turnout, adjust where you are sending your troops as the day goes on based on turnout vs non-contacted promises.
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
Today would only be the third vote, which is still way behind the 15 it took in January.
That said, I can't help but notice that if the House doesn't elect a Speaker today (which it won't), it will only be the fifth time in the 234-year history of Congress that it's take 4+ days to elect a Speaker. Three of those instances were in the lead-up to the Civil War; the other two will have been this year.
If Jordan's vote goes backwards, which seems quite possible, surely he's done ?
Only Lib Dems, Labour (Nick Palmer) and True and Fair telling this morning in Flitwick.
Labour are not collecting polling numbers, just being friendly outside the polling station.
They must be relying on a full knockup.
Both Labour and Lib Dem offices were busy as I passed.
Conservative and Labour (Rachel Reaves) were knocking up in the same village as me.
Lots of hard work from all quarters so turnout could be higher than expected.
I am surprised that a party with a serious chance is not collecting polling numbers everywhere.
Its a fools errand. You won't get everyone's polling number on their way into the polling station. Have your promises and knock them out. Focus on your own promises, send people into polling stations to ask for overall numbers to gauge turnout, adjust where you are sending your troops as the day goes on based on turnout vs non-contacted promises.
Shouldn't you knock them up, rather than out ?
Knocking them to go out the door towards the polling station. Knocking them up is something different.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
Not with our climate.
Free beer, perhaps.
We've started having a fish and chip van visit our village next to Village Hall (which is also the polling station).
Coinciding the van with polling day would boost turnout.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
Not with our climate.
Free beer, perhaps.
We've started having a fish and chip van visit our village next to Village Hall (which is also the polling station).
Coinciding the van with polling day would boost turnout.
Our local polling station is the sports club, which has in my opinion the best beer within a mile of here. Don't know how it does for turnout compared to other more abstemious polling stations mind you.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Ummmm: I used to have detailed stats on family size by country, and while that is undoubtedly part of the story, it definitely isn't true for countries like Bangladesh. There you still have 90+% of women married by the time they are 25, and average family sized have collapsed.
Let me find my stats, because while I'm sure the Spectator data is right about Western Europe / Singapore / Japan (and increasingly China), I'm very sceptical that it's true of the emerging world.
He doesn't mention Bangladesh, but he does mention India. But I'd be interested to see your stats; I found it interesting because it didn't fit what I thought were the facts.
The WHO has incredibly detailed data tables on family sizes. And, I'm sure the number of childless women is growing in places as education levels rise and places urbanize. (When you live in a shantytown in Mumbai, then babies take up an awful lot of space.)
But, if what he was saying was true, then to see declines from 6+ babies per women to 1.5 (as Bangladesh has seen in the last forty years) being principally due to childless women, would require that the 70% of women reached 40 without having a kid, and that's just wildly inaccurate.
FWIW, I think he's signficantly right about the developed world. But family sizes really are dropping in the developing world. See the Rausing Mind the Gap documentary for details.
Not in Africa so much, most African nations have 3-6 children on average per woman
Yes, but they used to be even higher.
Pretty much all of Africa is where SE Asia was twenty years ago, and is on exactly the same path.
Even 20 years ago Singapore and Thailand weren't having 5 or 6 children per woman as Niger, Congo, Angola and Nigeria are now
Only Lib Dems, Labour (Nick Palmer) and True and Fair telling this morning in Flitwick.
Labour are not collecting polling numbers, just being friendly outside the polling station.
They must be relying on a full knockup.
Both Labour and Lib Dem offices were busy as I passed.
Conservative and Labour (Rachel Reaves) were knocking up in the same village as me.
Lots of hard work from all quarters so turnout could be higher than expected.
I am surprised that a party with a serious chance is not collecting polling numbers everywhere.
Its a fools errand. You won't get everyone's polling number on their way into the polling station. Have your promises and knock them out. Focus on your own promises, send people into polling stations to ask for overall numbers to gauge turnout, adjust where you are sending your troops as the day goes on based on turnout vs non-contacted promises.
Shouldn't you knock them up, rather than out ?
Ah, trying to solve the birth rate issue at a byelection. I like the way you're thinking.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Fewer women going to university and fewer women working and more stay at home mothers and women getting married earlier would probably have the biggest impact but you can't say that of course
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Fewer women going to university and fewer women working and more stay at home mothers and women getting married earlier would probably have the biggest impact but you can't say that of course
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
Not with our climate.
Free beer, perhaps.
In the aftermath of the 1867 Reform Act the brewing interests - invariably Tory - would hold Bacchanalian gatherings outside polling stations to reward newly-enfranchised electors for their loyalty. Sometime between then and now the killjoys put a stop to it.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Only Lib Dems, Labour (Nick Palmer) and True and Fair telling this morning in Flitwick.
Labour are not collecting polling numbers, just being friendly outside the polling station.
They must be relying on a full knockup.
Both Labour and Lib Dem offices were busy as I passed.
Conservative and Labour (Rachel Reaves) were knocking up in the same village as me.
Lots of hard work from all quarters so turnout could be higher than expected.
I am surprised that a party with a serious chance is not collecting polling numbers everywhere.
Its a fools errand. You won't get everyone's polling number on their way into the polling station. Have your promises and knock them out. Focus on your own promises, send people into polling stations to ask for overall numbers to gauge turnout, adjust where you are sending your troops as the day goes on based on turnout vs non-contacted promises.
Shouldn't you knock them up, rather than out ?
Ah, trying to solve the birth rate issue at a byelection. I like the way you're thinking.
Anabobazinia Surely I am entitled to a view without being accused of trying to rig the markets etc, being a Lib Dem troll. Just because it does not fit in with your thinking should not stop me describing what I have observed, and which today identifies some aspects of what is happening, which happen to be confirmed by others. Your attitude bemuses me.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Fewer women going to university and fewer women working and more stay at home mothers and women getting married earlier would probably have the biggest impact but you can't say that of course
I think you just have, demonstrating conclusively that you can. The proper term for such remarks is 'self referential incoherence'.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Can that not be explained away through cross price elasticity, in that the demand for babies falls off a cliff (unfortunate metaphor) when house prices rise exponentially as they have in the UK, but beyond a certain floor demand for babies doesn't really increase if housing needs are already broadly met?
Being able to afford a four bedroom house in Germany in 2001, where previously I could have only afforded 3 bedroom one, is unlikely to make me suddenly want a third kid. However, being stuck in London or the SE where a young working couple aged 25-35 struggle to *rent* a one bed place let alone buy, will certainly have a greater effect.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
Not with our climate.
Free beer, perhaps.
In the aftermath of the 1867 Reform Act the brewing interests - invariably Tory - would hold Bacchanalian gatherings outside polling stations to reward newly-enfranchised electors for their loyalty. Sometime between then and now the killjoys put a stop to it.
I was going to point out the historical precedents.
Perhaps if the Electoral Commission were put in charge of refreshments ?
Labour will understandably be very angry if the Lib Dems cost them the seat in Mid-Beds .
Bearing in mind that Labour effectively stood aside in Tiverton and Honiton where they were second in 2019. The demographics there were more suitable for Tory voters moving towards the Lib Dems .
Unless Mid-Beds is similar in terms of more likely switchers then the Lib Dems really have been very self indulgent .
Clearly the LibDems think that Mid Beds could be a favourable demographic, otherwise they would have sat it out - as they are doing in Tamworth, and as they did in Rutherglen, and Selby & Ainsty, and Uxbridge.
Personally I think Mid Beds is and has always been a stretch for the LibDems, but for Labour to claim some entitlement to it on the basis that they sat out just two of the last 10 by-elections is more than a bit cheeky. Winning Mid Beds doesn't change the parliamentary arithmetic in any way - it's entirely legit for the LibDems to test their appeal there.
I think the LibDems had two key strategic decisions to make on mid Beds.
1. Should they stand? I think, not knowing what Labour was going to do, they made the right decision to stand. They went in hard and early. I think that was right. 2. Should they continue to stand after Labour came in hard? That's more difficult. To continue to stand risked splitting the vote and giving it to the Tories. But moving out of the way of Labour would encourage Labour to take a "droit du seigneur" approach to other marginals in the general election. On balance I think continuing to stand was the right decision.
I predict a Tory hold.
if there is acrimony between Labour and LibDems if the Tories hold the seat, I think Labour will suffer most. For example there will be less tactical voting by LibDems for Labour in the London Mayoral election. Labour benefit in many more seats from LibDem tactical voting that vice versa.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Fewer women going to university and fewer women working and more stay at home mothers and women getting married earlier would probably have the biggest impact but you can't say that of course
Why can't you say that?
Someone should rewrite that piece as 'The Feminism Theory of Everything'.
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
Today would only be the third vote, which is still way behind the 15 it took in January.
That said, I can't help but notice that if the House doesn't elect a Speaker today (which it won't), it will only be the fifth time in the 234-year history of Congress that it's take 4+ days to elect a Speaker. Three of those instances were in the lead-up to the Civil War; the other two will have been this year.
If Jordan's vote goes backwards, which seems quite possible, surely he's done ?
You would think so, because reality should really have hit by then (it should have hit yesterday when he went backwards). But then ‘reality’ and the MAGA cult don’t go well together…
I’m not a big expert in congressional politics, but it’s increasingly looking likely to me that this House is just dead, save for (hopefully) agreeing actions to keep government open and Ukraine/Israel funded. It feels like it might just be a case that they empower the temporary speaker but can’t coalesce around a permanent replacement before 2024… so it all just proceeds as a fudge until then.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
The Digested, digested: The film is "Birthgap - Childless World (part 1)" directed by Stephen J Shaw. The protestors considered the film's core message (women are leaving having a child too late with deleritous results) as antifeminist. People divided on culture war lines, arguments were had, the film was cancelled and then shown, nobody died.
Ten Words Or Less: PEOPLE ARE UPSET.
These people will be running the country in 20 years !
I'm not sure people in their teens/early 20s will be running the world in 20 years. And if they are, you can take comfort in the fact that there will be fewer of them...
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Reminds me of this article I read the other day by Mary Wakefield, Dominic Cummings' wife.
"Mary Wakefield I regret not having more children"
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
In the DC jury you can, given over 90% of them voted for Biden there, albeit that may just be partiality on the other side
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
And the Jordan's of the party remain in absolute control, strengthening their grip. If Trump wins the final free Presidential election there will be a lot of scratching of heads.
Once this Gilead-clique of the GOP take absolute control, they won't freely give it up.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
Just tell her not to complain about anything the government does or be surprised if the government doesn't take her views into account.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
Where couples do have children it is also increasingly just 1 or at most 2, especially in the West.
Certainly more women put careers first, 50 even 25 years ago many women left work in their early 30s when they had children and never went back, certainly full time and the husband was the main bread winner expecte to have the job and career. Leaving it too late to have children also makes it more difficult.
Women are also more fussy, apps give them wider choice rather than settling for the guy down the road but at the end of the day there are still only so many men to go round and hence we also have more angry incels too.
There need to be more tax breaks and transfers between spouses so women who want to stay at home with children can and we could increase child benefits for the first 2 children too
I'd say that the same apps also tend push men towards being more fickle. Once the novelty of a new relationship has worn off, not a few blokes will be swiping their way towards their next notch rather than gearing up for fatherhood. Unsurprisingly, most women aren't too keen on having kids until they are reasonably sure that dad is going to be sticking around.
Just heard a waitress in a cafe say she never votes in elections. I replied to say they ought to do the same thing as Australia and have free barbecues for everyone who turns up at the polling station. It might improve the turnout.
Not with our climate.
Free beer, perhaps.
We've started having a fish and chip van visit our village next to Village Hall (which is also the polling station).
Coinciding the van with polling day would boost turnout.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Fewer women going to university and fewer women working and more stay at home mothers and women getting married earlier would probably have the biggest impact but you can't say that of course
"married". Didn't know couples were so old-fashioned.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
And the Jordan's of the party remain in absolute control, strengthening their grip. If Trump wins the final free Presidential election there will be a lot of scratching of heads.
Once this Gilead-clique of the GOP take absolute control, they won't freely give it up.
Whatever happened to the good old days, where a President could appeal to 60% of the population?
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
Today would only be the third vote, which is still way behind the 15 it took in January.
That said, I can't help but notice that if the House doesn't elect a Speaker today (which it won't), it will only be the fifth time in the 234-year history of Congress that it's take 4+ days to elect a Speaker. Three of those instances were in the lead-up to the Civil War; the other two will have been this year.
Note that in the serial voting leading up to election of Kevin McCarthy as Temporary Speaker, he NEVER got fewer than 200 votes.
By comparison, 200 is the BEST that Jim Jordan has achieved, Coach Jockstrap got just 199 yesterday, with one more GOPer voting than on the first ballot (Bilirakis of Florida was absent for initial roll call, attending a funeral.)
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
What is the main direct causal factor? Is it the squeeze on disposable income after housing costs means 2 jobs needed to get by, means less time and money available for creating and raising families? That doesn't feel quite right to me. Perhaps we have a 'cause v correlation' issue?
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The bit in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The but in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
Quite.
It's scary the amount of damage one bad actor can do to an entire political system.
I see Sunak has unambiguously stood next to Netanyahu and said "we want you to win".
Good for him.
I've been a major critic of Sunak since he put up NI onwards, but credit where credit is due. He is showing some good principles and standing for that which is righteous here. 👍
What does "win" mean?
The only ways that Israel can "win" are to:
1) expel the Palestinian people from Gaza 2) run Gaza as a police state, with full occupation by a large number of soldiers, or 3) negotiate some sort of peace agreement that gives the Palestinians a better life than they have had to endure over the past couple of decades.
You can't eliminate Hamas and expect that to be job done. When people are kept under oppression, the most violent and radical elements will tend to rise to the top. Hamas is a symptom of the conditions under which the Gazans have had to live; if Hamas is eliminated and nothing else changes, Gaza will just end up being run by another similarly ruthless bunch bent on revenge.
I suspect we are looking at 2. I don’t think the Biden Administration will support 1 at all.
Although I have my doubts that 2 will work, maybe 2 can eventually lead to 3 in the fullness of time rather than further enmity and destruction. The only way that will come about is if Israel is prepared to support the development of Gaza. Do I think that’s likely? Sadly, no.
I wonder about 2 with huge amounts of aid going into Gaza. In my view, as you say, the only way to defeat Hamas is through Gazan prosperity.
If I was Biden I’d be using my political weight to persuade Israel of the benefits of such an aid package, and create a coalition of the wiling to fund it.
I think step one is for Netanyahu to go. He has fostered Hamas in order to have an implacable opponent who will not reach a peace agreement so Israel could continue creating "facts on the ground". Netanyahu was already on shaky ground. I think some of his coalition will abandon him resulting in new Israeli leadership.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
Today would only be the third vote, which is still way behind the 15 it took in January.
That said, I can't help but notice that if the House doesn't elect a Speaker today (which it won't), it will only be the fifth time in the 234-year history of Congress that it's take 4+ days to elect a Speaker. Three of those instances were in the lead-up to the Civil War; the other two will have been this year.
Note that in the serial voting leading up to election of Kevin McCarthy as Temporary Speaker, he NEVER got fewer than 200 votes.
By comparison, 200 is the BEST that Jim Jordan has achieved, Coach Jockstrap got just 199 yesterday, with one more GOPer voting than on the first ballot (Bilirakis of Florida was absent for initial roll call, attending a funeral.)
For those advocating less power for political parties, this doesn't look like such a great example - House Republicans seem to have little party discipline and it's a mess.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
And the Jordan's of the party remain in absolute control, strengthening their grip. If Trump wins the final free Presidential election there will be a lot of scratching of heads.
Once this Gilead-clique of the GOP take absolute control, they won't freely give it up.
Whatever happened to the good old days, where a President could appeal to 60% of the population?
Well, these days, appears that Trump is appealing (in one sense anyway) to approx. 60% of US judges, on a whole range of criminal/civil litigation/prosecution.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The but in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
Quite.
It's scary the amount of damage one bad actor can do to an entire political system.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Where is "the Left Blank" in this context?
The side occupied by the Russians. Left and right are from the perspective of the flow of the river.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Fewer women going to university and fewer women working and more stay at home mothers and women getting married earlier would probably have the biggest impact but you can't say that of course
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
Apart from the non-trivial chance of an armed insurrection there just isn't enough time to get a conviction and sentencing before the 2024 campaign starts.
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
The problem I have with that research is that some places - like Germany or Italy - saw very long periods of house price declines (1990 to 2010), and it did nothing for their birth rates.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Fewer women going to university and fewer women working and more stay at home mothers and women getting married earlier would probably have the biggest impact but you can't say that of course
"married". Didn't know couples were so old-fashioned.
Yet another problem. People commit later if at all to marriage, family and children
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Where is "the Left Blank" in this context?
No clue what "Left Blank" means!
However, the Left Bank of a river, is the side that's on the left when you (or a boat, or drop of water) is heading downstream.
Thus (for example) in Paris, the Left Bank is south of the Seine, while Right Bank is to North.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
And the Jordan's of the party remain in absolute control, strengthening their grip. If Trump wins the final free Presidential election there will be a lot of scratching of heads.
Once this Gilead-clique of the GOP take absolute control, they won't freely give it up.
Whatever happened to the good old days, where a President could appeal to 60% of the population?
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The bit in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
They won't but the evidence is even most Republican voters wouldn't vote for Trump if he was in jail
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The but in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
Quite.
It's scary the amount of damage one bad actor can do to an entire political system.
Trump accelerated and extended it but the GOP has had a growing band of destructive partisans for a couple of decades. Without them he would have been laughed out of sight. No a lone bad actor at all, just an out of control actor no-one else can now stop.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
He did. To me he's ok now, and I think he's been a good and effective president, but a 2nd term looks unwise - unless he's needed to beat Trump.
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
If this happens, and it's a big if, it would cement the notion of a Labour majority. In other words, it starts to pass from theory to reality. Their huge win in Rutherglen was a big moment. Now they need to follow it through south of the border.
I still believe Uxbridge was a one-off, albeit a warning shot, and not to be extrapolated beyond outer London at that moment in time.
If on the other hand Labour fall short on either target it will make me more circumspect about their prospects of an outright win, certainly on a landslide scale.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The bit in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
They won't but the evidence is even most Republican voters wouldn't vote for Trump if he was in jail
TLDR: Families aren't, actually, getting smaller worldwide. Where families exist, they are staying roughly the same size. What's happening is a massive increase in childlessness - i.e. people not having children at all. Half of women who reach 30 childless will never have children. The author says this is involuntary - these women want children but are not having them. Personally I am not sure this is adequately proven. But nevertheless, the overall finding is significant. Almost in passing, it's mentioned that protestors at Cambridge University prevented a film to this effect being shown. Of course.
That is consistent with an interesting column some time ago in the Guardian. Lots of women waiting to have children until they've found Mr. Right and then running out of time.
Two possible solutions occur to me. Encourage women to settle for Mr. Not Awful, or to have children while single.
I don't know about other places, but the UK in large parts presents the appearance of a place running a competition to see how difficult it can make it for people, especially but not only the middle class, to have children before the age of about 43.
For really spectacular examples try talking to female medics, especially in areas of stellar property prices; female academics are often similarly placed.
In the long run it is catastrophic, and very sad.
The article I linked to the other day, The Housing Theory of Everything (I won't link to it again, lest they think I'm on commission) raised two stats:
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
What is the main direct causal factor? Is it the squeeze on disposable income after housing costs means 2 jobs needed to get by, means less time and money available for creating and raising families? That doesn't feel quite right to me. Perhaps we have a 'cause v correlation' issue?
The author uses a methodology that identifies "a variable that is exogenous to birth rates and strongly correlated with county-level house prices", which they argue is "refusal rates for major development projects as a source of exogenous variation in house prices". There is then some maths that is then rather over my head, but includes " Xcg(t-1), a vector of control variables with "three main components: (i) labour market controls; (ii) demographic characteristics; and (iii) non-housing wealth and net population change."
So the author is clearly saying that, ceteris paribus, when you strip out other significant possible *economic* causes (I note he doesn't mention, say, dating apps or the eternal propensity to "keep swiping right"), a rise in house prices is directly correlated with a fall in childbirth, and this has been consistent over an observable period of time (1996-2014).
Of course, things are more complicated in real life than even the densest academic paper or equation, I've already mentioned one possible cause in the decline of birth rates. Another might be exponentially rising childcare costs.
To me, the point is it seems bloody obvious that if you're 27 years old and want to have kids, but you're renting in insecure accommodation (one or at most two beds) in insecure jobs (who has a job for life these days?) with little to no hope of being able to pay for kids, or house them, you're going to have less of them. So you wait until you're 37 (if you're lucky), and by that time it takes three rounds of IVF until you either get lucky or finally accept it isn't going to happen.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
The bit in bold is the bit of your chain of reasoning I take issue with. Trump has such a hold on his supporters that he has convinced them he won the 2020 election and that the Democrats have politicised the justice system. Being jailed will only convince them that the problem is worse than they feared and they need to elect Trump to fix it more than ever.
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
Correction at end of final sentence above - 'ballots".
Given that in USA, each state (plus District of Columbia) is responsible for its own elections, including ballot access, for primaries as well as general elections.
Your basic point, however, is right on; in state after state, Putinist Trumpsters (and visa versa) are in charge of the primary election process, which is actually more relevant right now than mere ballot access.
For example, rules that award entire state delegation to primary victor on "winner take all" basis, and which have been recently adopted by some state Republican parties.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
A compelling argument. However I do query exactly what happens at the point where any court gets close to convicting Trump, never mind sentencing him to the big house.
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
And it only takes one person to hang a jury in the US. Can you really find 12 people who are able to impartially judge Trump?
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
I do think those of us who are very politically interested tend to overestimate the problem of getting a reasonably impartial jury in these cases. One in three eligible Americans didn't bother voting in 2020, and many of those who did won't have had as strong an opinion on the candidates as we tend to imagine. There's also a jury selection process with questioning of prospective jurors, and judges will tend to err on the side of caution regarding potential partisans.
I'd not rule out what you describe happening, and of course there could be a hung jury simply because a genuinely reasonably impartial juror or two disagree with most fellow jurors on relevant points - it needn't necessarily be that a dedicated Trump-cheerleader has evaded detection at selection. I just don't think it's as likely as you suggest.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
We certainly should contemplate the possibility of one or both of the 2020 candidates not re-running for a number of reasons.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
He did. To me he's ok now, and I think he's been a good and effective president, but a 2nd term looks unwise - unless he's needed to beat Trump.
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
If he was up against one candidate that might happen, but against ten or so their support is fractured and as soon as any of them pop their heads above the parapet an easy target for Trump to declare a RINO.
That's the second person in the Georgia trials to flip. That is not good news for the Donald.
Just on this, I wish to put something on the PB record. I think if we divorce ourselves from the detail the underlying Big Truth is as follows:
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
I wouldn't object to that outcome. I wonder if Hillary or Michelle are still available?
I have Michelle at 120. Maybe the best 'amateur hour' bet I've ever done.
If this happens, and it's a big if, it would cement the notion of a Labour majority. In other words, it starts to pass from theory to reality. Their huge win in Rutherglen was a big moment. Now they need to follow it through south of the border.
I still believe Uxbridge was a one-off, albeit a warning shot, and not to be extrapolated beyond outer London at that moment in time.
If on the other hand Labour fall short on either target it will make me more circumspect about their prospects of an outright win, certainly on a landslide scale.
I think you’re both wrong. I think the Tories will win in Beds (I don’t know enough about Tamworth to have a view) but I also think that will mean nothing because the seat is so safe Tory (and Labour so assured as a distant second place) that only Nadine being Nadine has made this election remotely interesting.
If anything, I guess it might stop Labour being complacent but the Tories should draw no comfort at all from winning there.
If this happens, and it's a big if, it would cement the notion of a Labour majority. In other words, it starts to pass from theory to reality. Their huge win in Rutherglen was a big moment. Now they need to follow it through south of the border.
I still believe Uxbridge was a one-off, albeit a warning shot, and not to be extrapolated beyond outer London at that moment in time.
If on the other hand Labour fall short on either target it will make me more circumspect about their prospects of an outright win, certainly on a landslide scale.
Uxbridge = Hartlepools Peak Sunak = Peak Boris!
Its all downhill from the peak.
EDIT - there was much criticism of Jill Mortimer for saying something stupid and racist at PMQs yesterday. But it likely went down a storm in Hartlepools where the electorate are
. . . meanwhile, back under the Big Top, Rep Jim Jordan (R-Nuremberg) still saying that yet another vote to (attempt to) elect a Speaker of the US House will take place today.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
Today would only be the third vote, which is still way behind the 15 it took in January.
That said, I can't help but notice that if the House doesn't elect a Speaker today (which it won't), it will only be the fifth time in the 234-year history of Congress that it's take 4+ days to elect a Speaker. Three of those instances were in the lead-up to the Civil War; the other two will have been this year.
If Jordan's vote goes backwards, which seems quite possible, surely he's done ?
You would think so, because reality should really have hit by then (it should have hit yesterday when he went backwards). But then ‘reality’ and the MAGA cult don’t go well together…
I’m not a big expert in congressional politics, but it’s increasingly looking likely to me that this House is just dead, save for (hopefully) agreeing actions to keep government open and Ukraine/Israel funded. It feels like it might just be a case that they empower the temporary speaker but can’t coalesce around a permanent replacement before 2024… so it all just proceeds as a fudge until then.
If this happens, and it's a big if, it would cement the notion of a Labour majority. In other words, it starts to pass from theory to reality. Their huge win in Rutherglen was a big moment. Now they need to follow it through south of the border.
I still believe Uxbridge was a one-off, albeit a warning shot, and not to be extrapolated beyond outer London at that moment in time.
If on the other hand Labour fall short on either target it will make me more circumspect about their prospects of an outright win, certainly on a landslide scale.
Uxbridge = Hartlepools Peak Sunak = Peak Boris!
Its all downhill from the peak.
EDIT - there was much criticism of Jill Mortimer for saying something stupid and racist at PMQs yesterday. But it likely went down a strom in Hartlepools where the electorate are
If Labour pull of swings of c.18% in both seats, they'll just fall short, but they'd still be heading for victory at the GE.
ATACMS+Crimean Channel. The General Staff confirmed the presence of the Armed Forces on the Left Bank. Having returned the west of the Kherson oblast and secured a foothold along the canal, the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Crimea are changing. All (Russian) air bases are (potentially) under attack https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Where is "the Left Blank" in this context?
No clue what "Left Blank" means!
However, the Left Bank of a river, is the side that's on the left when you (or a boat, or drop of water) is heading downstream.
Thus (for example) in Paris, the Left Bank is south of the Seine, while Right Bank is to North.
Comments
To solutions: myfavoured solution is that of the French - that is, you add to your tax free allowance for every child you have. But that could be because I would benefit from it.
Which is true. Even in Africa.
Birth rates are lower now than they used to be. That is what is meant by the word "dropping".
That said, it's not the past where they do things differently, it's Liverpool.
Get your popcorn ready but do NOT hold your breath!
Highly likely there will be that GOPers will caucus before any public vote.
My own fearless forecast is that our very own Vicar of Bray has a better chance of being chosen as tthe next US House Chaplain, than Jockstrap Jim has of being elected the next Speaker. At least in THIS Congress.
Note seemingly growing sediment (sp?) for making current "Speaker Pro Tempore" Patrick McHenry an Acting Speaker empowered to preside over actual legislative business.
For semi-superannuated Americans, PMcH bears a strong resemblance to the late Wally Cox.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Cox
Except in France, where female university graduates have birth rates a smidgen above 2, and it is less well educated french women (who benefit less from those tax breaks) who have fewer kids.
Judge denies Trump’s attempt to delay Jan. 6 civil lawsuit
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4263469-donald-trump-january-6-civil-lawsuit-judge-denies-delay/
Free beer, perhaps.
That said, I can't help but notice that if the House doesn't elect a Speaker today (which it won't), it will only be the fifth time in the 234-year history of Congress that it's take 4+ days to elect a Speaker. Three of those instances were in the lead-up to the Civil War; the other two will have been this year.
"Mary Wakefield
I regret not having more children"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-regret-not-having-more-children/
Firstly, an academic paper making the following conclusion: "A 10 per cent increase in house prices leads to a 2.8 per cent increase in births among owners and a 4.9 per cent decrease in births among renters. Once calculated at the mean home ownership rate the net effect is a 1.3 per cent fall in birth rates."
Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2846173
This paper was published in 2016. So as fewer and fewer people are able to get on the property ladder in their peak fertility years, we can assume that birth rates will continue to decline.
Secondly, and based on the above academic paper, a more detailed look by the Adam Smith Institute into what those figures might mean.
The headline figures there are an estimate of 157,000 children not born due to the cost of housing between 1996 and 2014 (one presumes the figure has continued to rise since), as well as 'In the ten years between 2004 and 2014 homeownership fell from 60% to 35% among 25-34 year olds—the key childbearing demographic'.
Source: https://www.adamsmith.org/news/children-of-when
Couple that last stat with the first one, and the reason for the precipitous decline in childbirth is obvious. It's the housing market. Again.
Coinciding the van with polling day would boost turnout.
So, while I'm sure housing is a factor, it can't be the dominant one, or you would see very different birth rate trends between countries depending on housing affordability.
Biden is too frail to do another term and won't run unless Trump is the GOP candidate - in which case it's his duty to be St George again. But Trump won't be the GOP candidate because it'll become clear that he's probably going to jail without a plea deal.
Therefore come November 2024 neither of them will be on the ballot. Or to be less bold and more judicious, imo this possibility is considerably under-priced.
Con: 29%
LD: 25%
Turnout 51%
There would be an absolute fucking riot. Jurors, prosecutors, the judge - all of them having to go into witness protection as the lunatics demand their deaths. Would be a brave person willing to do what is right...
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1714992859839877224
Lab 31%
Con 28%
Turnout 49%
Surely I am entitled to a view without being accused of trying to rig the markets etc, being a Lib Dem troll. Just because it does not fit in with your thinking should not stop me describing what I have observed, and which today identifies some aspects of what is happening, which happen to be confirmed by others. Your attitude bemuses me.
Being able to afford a four bedroom house in Germany in 2001, where previously I could have only afforded 3 bedroom one, is unlikely to make me suddenly want a third kid. However, being stuck in London or the SE where a young working couple aged 25-35 struggle to *rent* a one bed place let alone buy, will certainly have a greater effect.
Perhaps if the Electoral Commission were put in charge of refreshments ?
1. Should they stand?
I think, not knowing what Labour was going to do, they made the right decision to stand. They went in hard and early. I think that was right.
2. Should they continue to stand after Labour came in hard?
That's more difficult. To continue to stand risked splitting the vote and giving it to the Tories. But moving out of the way of Labour would encourage Labour to take a "droit du seigneur" approach to other marginals in the general election. On balance I think continuing to stand was the right decision.
I predict a Tory hold.
if there is acrimony between Labour and LibDems if the Tories hold the seat, I think Labour will suffer most. For example there will be less tactical voting by LibDems for Labour in the London Mayoral election. Labour benefit in many more seats from LibDem tactical voting that vice versa.
I’m not a big expert in congressional politics, but it’s increasingly looking likely to me that this House is just dead, save for (hopefully) agreeing actions to keep government open and Ukraine/Israel funded. It feels like it might just be a case that they empower the temporary speaker but can’t coalesce around a permanent replacement before 2024… so it all just proceeds as a fudge until then.
However, voluntarily backing out is difficult once the primaries are well under way - and gets harder the further through the process the withdrawal (or removal by events) takes place. There are plenty of constraints placed on many actors in the process, and many barriers to new ones joining in. Understanding the possibilities within the process, and the ease or otherwise of using those possibilities, is critical in assessing the probabilities of those outcomes.
I did think Biden looked old in Israel this week (which of course he is: 81 next month, older than all but one of any leader of any G7 country since WW2).
I think a mistrial is almost inevitable.
UNLESS pretty much everyone flips. In that event, it could be very interesting.
That said, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Around 35% of Americans think that the US election in 2024 was rigged. That's a massive fucking problem, and sure Donald is responsible for the problem existing, but unless we can deprogramme people who believe something batshit, then the US is in for a world of hurt.
And those people who enabled the lies - Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz - have done the world and the US a massive disservice.
Once this Gilead-clique of the GOP take absolute control, they won't freely give it up.
Chip vans, not elections as far as I know.
By comparison, 200 is the BEST that Jim Jordan has achieved, Coach Jockstrap got just 199 yesterday, with one more GOPer voting than on the first ballot (Bilirakis of Florida was absent for initial roll call, attending a funeral.)
Kier with the Big Mo...
And the GOP hierarchy is a prisoner of Trump's supporters. They won't block him from the ballot.
Your baby piece was very interesting, and thjere's some fascinating data in there.
It's scary the amount of damage one bad actor can do to an entire political system.
Step two is to review the intelligence failure and make sure it never happens again. Contain Hamas as total eliminanation is probably not possible
I think step three is to abandon the two state solution. It's clearly not going to work.
Step four is to carefully offer Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank and assimilate them including voting rights and building rights. It would be a long process but would eventually act as a model for Gaza.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2019&context=jil#:~:text=Therefore, if a given area,a matter of treaty law.
Anyone with any better ideas?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bob_Odenkirk_by_Gage_Skidmore_2.jpg
Reported today 40 more schools with dodgy concrete and more questions about covid funds going to firms his wife has investments in .
If the Tories scrape through by a small margin then events in the Middle East are likely to be the reason .
I think there's more chance of Biden dropping dead than Trump getting locked up. He looked like he was either fucked or buggered in Tall Abib and couldn't work out which it was.
However, the Left Bank of a river, is the side that's on the left when you (or a boat, or drop of water) is heading downstream.
Thus (for example) in Paris, the Left Bank is south of the Seine, while Right Bank is to North.
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/03/republicans-vote-trump-prison-poll-jan-6-trial
Re Trump, what I'm foreseeing* is his 'numbers' sliding as the legal noose tightens and enough of the GOP electors realizing this, that he's just not tenable as a candidate, to pick someone else, some reluctantly, some with gusto.
* course there's a bit of 'hoping' in there along with the 'foreseeing'.
I still believe Uxbridge was a one-off, albeit a warning shot, and not to be extrapolated beyond outer London at that moment in time.
If on the other hand Labour fall short on either target it will make me more circumspect about their prospects of an outright win, certainly on a landslide scale.
Xcg(t-1), a vector of control variables with "three main components: (i) labour market controls; (ii) demographic characteristics; and (iii) non-housing wealth and net population change."
So the author is clearly saying that, ceteris paribus, when you strip out other significant possible *economic* causes (I note he doesn't mention, say, dating apps or the eternal propensity to "keep swiping right"), a rise in house prices is directly correlated with a fall in childbirth, and this has been consistent over an observable period of time (1996-2014).
Of course, things are more complicated in real life than even the densest academic paper or equation, I've already mentioned one possible cause in the decline of birth rates. Another might be exponentially rising childcare costs.
To me, the point is it seems bloody obvious that if you're 27 years old and want to have kids, but you're renting in insecure accommodation (one or at most two beds) in insecure jobs (who has a job for life these days?) with little to no hope of being able to pay for kids, or house them, you're going to have less of them. So you wait until you're 37 (if you're lucky), and by that time it takes three rounds of IVF until you either get lucky or finally accept it isn't going to happen.
Given that in USA, each state (plus District of Columbia) is responsible for its own elections, including ballot access, for primaries as well as general elections.
Your basic point, however, is right on; in state after state, Putinist Trumpsters (and visa versa) are in charge of the primary election process, which is actually more relevant right now than mere ballot access.
For example, rules that award entire state delegation to primary victor on "winner take all" basis, and which have been recently adopted by some state Republican parties.
I'd not rule out what you describe happening, and of course there could be a hung jury simply because a genuinely reasonably impartial juror or two disagree with most fellow jurors on relevant points - it needn't necessarily be that a dedicated Trump-cheerleader has evaded detection at selection. I just don't think it's as likely as you suggest.
If anything, I guess it might stop Labour being complacent but the Tories should draw no comfort at all from winning there.
Peak Sunak = Peak Boris!
Its all downhill from the peak.
EDIT - there was much criticism of Jill Mortimer for saying something stupid and racist at PMQs yesterday. But it likely went down a storm in Hartlepools where the electorate are
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/18/gop-party-house-speaker-00122371
And Jordan has indeed conceded - though with an effort to maintain some sort of influence over an Acting Speaker with enhanced powers.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/10/19/congress/jordans-new-plan-00122465
A shocking lapse from so erudite a contributor.