On the previous thread, someone suggested that the Trump immunity claim is "a crazy claim, but one that should be ruled on by the Supreme Court".
The court could indeed already have ruled, as did the federal appeals court, by summarily dismissing the appeal without a hearing.
They chose to hear arguments in the case - something they can only do if they believe the case has a reasonable chance of prevailing.
It is an abysmal lack of judgment.
Where is there any rule saying what the Supreme Court can and can’t do?
They can hear what they like.
I think this is important enough it needs the authority of a SC ruling. One would hope that CJ Roberts knows what he is doing
Blaming the Supreme Court is easier than explaining why its taken 38 months to bring Trump to trial in a federal court.
It's fairly easy to explain why the cases have taken so long. Ever stage of gathering evidence has been fought through the courts - which is why Trump's legal bills are in the tens of millions.
Trump's wealth is fairly nebulous, but lawyers tend to prefer actual cash rather than IOUs. How's he generated the free cash flow to pay all his bills - Deutsche, donors, asset (Pfnarr) sales ?
Trump's PACs - Save America, and Make America Great Again - have paid tens of millions between them.
Hopefully he will have been stripped of his assets by New York/put into default by his lenders long before the Supreme Court ever gets round to deciding he had no Presidential immunity. E Jean Carroll's lawyers can start going after his assets next week if he hasn't found the $85m cash/bond to support an appeal.
And if he has found the money - which dodgy government has bailed him out and has a potential US President in their pocket? A re-working of that Ed Miliband/Alex Salmond poster might be coming from the Dems...
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
Do Sunak and Hunt intend to cut tax or NI in this spring budget, and throw the gauntlet down at Starmer’s feet “if you don’t support these cuts, which taxes you promising to rise are you putting as commitments in your manifesto” whilst Kowakian monkey-lizards everywhere wave order papers and roar in delight?
Any type of tax cut in this budget the voters will see through as a total joke, a total bribe - voters will see it as paid for from how tax take has been stealthy hiked and the Postmasters and blood scandal victims haven’t been paid. Hunt has already introduced £20 billion’s worth of rises in 2023-24, whilst scheduling £17 billion more for after the election, including continued threshold freezes.
Let’s be honest, Tories cutting tax in this particular budget could cost them more votes than it gains.
High borrowing, zero growth, crumbling public services. Tax cut paid for how?
Conservatives win elections on fiscal discipline, not this financial fantasy gibberish. These millionaires untouched by what the people have gone through the last five years, are going to get hammered at the election on the basis in their minds they actually think it helps their cause to cut taxes just before this one, that the bleeding obvious bribe half paid for and half future paid for by the voters themselves, won’t look like the bleeding obvious bribe it is.
Tories can’t read a room or relate to the electorate anymore. They will never come back to power until they can.
Added to this we just had "the biggest tax-cutting budget in history" (BBC and print media) and it didn't touch the sides for working people. There is a reason this sort of line just isn't believed any more. This Govt will not cut the tax burden, will not solve the problems at the NHS and they will not even try to meaningfully address the chaotic immigration situation. That is the public's opinion and that is why the Govt is headed for defeat however they choose to now go through the motions of their last months in office
So, water supply question, tagging @MattW as he seems to know about many things housing, but others may know too:
We're on a shared water supply with Yorkshire Water. Eight houses on the pipe from the main that runs along the road. At times pressure is fine (when no one else is using) but at other times it's terrible, low flow downstairs and you can get absolutely nothing at times from upstairs taps, particularly shower (for extra height). At least one neighbour has installed a pump at the water main into property, but this apparently hasn't solved all issues (and if we all do it I suspect we'll be back to square one, assuming there's a limit to water flow through the shared pipe), pumped or not - as noted, there's no pressure issue when others are not using water.
I know water companies have an obligation to deliver minimal flow in most cases on single supplies, but does anyone know how this applies to shared supplies - is it per house or the water company just has to show sufficient flow at the start of the shared pipe? Yorkshire Water are a pain t get hold of and I'd like to be able to tell the person I speak to what the regulatory situation is, rather than be fobbed off.
Also, if we all get a pump, is that likely to help? Sections of the pipe have been replaced, but some is ancient pipe so there may also be flow constriction issues within the old parts of the shared pipe.
I'm not sure on water company obligations.
In those circs looking for a 'local' fix I think you should have a look at a thing called a Cold Water Accumulator. It is a tank of water held at mains pressure that maintains pressure / boosts the flow when the mains is not supplying enough - ie a local mains pressure reservoir. Size is specified depending on your system and demand. They are normally plumbed in before anything divides off the supply inside your house aiui. Consider whether you want a slightly larger one than might normally be advised, to be sure - perhaps "one size up" would only add 10-15% of cost.
I can't comment on your neighbour's pump without knowing the installation - it may be worth asking him if he has one of the above, in case that is evidence that it will not do it or his tank is too small! To me common sense says that the problem with just a pump or pump / very small tank is that it is playing grab extra water in a zero-sum game with the neighbours, rather than supplying an extra local resource of pre-accumulated water.
Questions and tips:
- Make sure you have reached your point of "satisfied you understand enough" before getting anything. - When talking to your plumber, review your system to be sure that there is nothing incompatible there, or that will prevent the benefit (eg types of shower, central heating setup etc). - If you have a water softening system, talk your plumber through that. I have heard of issues with eg modest pressure differences each side of some water softeners. - If you have detailed questions, ask them over at buildhub.org.uk, which is a community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am on the mod team (name: Ferdinand).
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
We are 47 weeks exactly from the general election on Thursday, 23rd January. Your analysis rests on an earlier election being better for the government than a later one, which I think is wrong. First, not even Liz Truss thinks it would be better to have Kier Starmer rather than Rishi in Number 10 for the rest of this year. Second, by negating the Opposition parties' ground war advantage, a holiday campaign is best for the Conservatives. Third, something might turn up.
You think an election over Christmas with Rishi waiting to the last second is going to get the Tory party votes.
I can see the Tory party returning as the 3rd or even 4th party is Rishi was that stupid
No way are we having a Christmas GE. I just don't see that ever happening as a premeditated event. The only exception would be in some kind of extreme constitutional crisis.
I'm just watching a Channel 5 documentary on Anne Boleyn, where Owen Jones is interviewed about Cromwell.
I'm just waiting for a call to be interviewed about Hereward the Wake's influence on early Norman times...
It’s good that they found Owen Jones to consult on Cromwell as there are absolutely no actual experts on him and the period and so clearly better to speak to someone who studied history a couple of decades ago and writes about modern class issues.
In its heyday BBC would have sent an outside broadcast unit complete with outriders up to Christ Church for 10 seconds of wisdom from Hugh Trevor-Roper because he was far too busy to go to London. It's a telling indication of how far they've fallen.
I was talking to an acquaintance about this the other day. He and his wife both work (he claimed joint salary of around £70k), and have two young kids. He said a quote for an all-inclusive two-week foreign holiday this summer was between six and eight grand - far more than they can afford. He said that his parents were not well off, but managed at least one foreign holiday a year.
I have heard similar complaints from other parents. A very quick 'win' for any government would be to allow children one week off school term-time. Yes, I know that has consequences, but I also think it will be popular with everyone except teachers and price-gouging travel firms.
Oh God no. Those of us without kids quite like knowing exactly when to avoid booking! Expensive foreign holidays aren’t a human right, and education is much more important than a cheap week on a beach.
Hey, I'm not saying it's the right thing to do: just that it'd be popular.
I think that chap probably has a very particular kind of foreign holiday.
I think the minimum viable spend for a 2 week family summer holiday abroad is something like £3k. Similar for the UK unless you go very basic given accommodation here is more expensive.
Take a holiday in a reasonable but not fancy self catering cottage with a garden but no pool, somewhere in central France. Ferry 200, fuel and tolls around 250, accommodation say 1,800, 5-6 meals out 500, shopping for self catering another 200, museum & attraction tickets maybe another 100, that’s just over 3 grand.
The accommodation cost would be similar if you went Eurocamp.
That sort of holiday doesn’t vary in price quite so much around school holidays though.
For years I've advocated staggering the school holidays regionally.
I've been told that this would cause civilisation to collapse.
Then you point out that in other countries, they do this....
in Scotland each city would have a different trades fortnight over the summer
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
We are 47 weeks exactly from the general election on Thursday, 23rd January. Your analysis rests on an earlier election being better for the government than a later one, which I think is wrong. First, not even Liz Truss thinks it would be better to have Kier Starmer rather than Rishi in Number 10 for the rest of this year. Second, by negating the Opposition parties' ground war advantage, a holiday campaign is best for the Conservatives. Third, something might turn up.
That would expect people to fill out their postal votes (if they arrived) at the height of Christmas and then would expect the post office to get them back where they needed to be after the Christmas delivery system had wound up. At a time when the posties are pretty mutinous. I foresee potential problems.
Mr Sunak is already seen as a squatter (by plenty on the right too) - spinning it out to January would mean the Opposition ground game would be a cherry on the cake rather than electoral necessity
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
I know that bullying/harassment complaints under the ICGS have similar levels of confidentiality, but I wonder what could be the reason in this case - a concurrent criminal investigation, perhaps?
I'm sure this will have been mentioned but a brilliant fifteen minutes of Gove's duplicity which ultimately led to where we are today. I think they're calling it 'The Butterfly Effect..."
I'm just watching a Channel 5 documentary on Anne Boleyn, where Owen Jones is interviewed about Cromwell.
I'm just waiting for a call to be interviewed about Hereward the Wake's influence on early Norman times...
It’s good that they found Owen Jones to consult on Cromwell as there are absolutely no actual experts on him and the period and so clearly better to speak to someone who studied history a couple of decades ago and writes about modern class issues.
In its heyday BBC would have sent an outside broadcast unit complete with outriders up to Christ Church for 10 seconds of wisdom from Hugh Trevor-Roper because he was far too busy to go to London. It's a telling indication of how far they've fallen.
Urrm, it was Channel 5.
There are still churches around of the Cromwell sort of style, but for those you would be in Northern Ireland, or certain fairly narrow and very serious traditions in England/Wales *.
I'm just watching a Channel 5 documentary on Anne Boleyn, where Owen Jones is interviewed about Cromwell.
I'm just waiting for a call to be interviewed about Hereward the Wake's influence on early Norman times...
It’s good that they found Owen Jones to consult on Cromwell as there are absolutely no actual experts on him and the period and so clearly better to speak to someone who studied history a couple of decades ago and writes about modern class issues.
In its heyday BBC would have sent an outside broadcast unit complete with outriders up to Christ Church for 10 seconds of wisdom from Hugh Trevor-Roper because he was far too busy to go to London. It's a telling indication of how far they've fallen.
Urrm, it was Channel 5.
There are still churches around of the Cromwell sort of style, but for those you would be in Northern Ireland, or certain fairly narrow and very serious traditions in England/Wales *.
* Not commenting on Scotland.
Building: Berwick-upon-Tweed - albeit pimped up badly in later centuries.
Style: he was an Independent, which has morphed its name and aggregated somewhat to Congregationalist today. He wasn't that extreme by the standards of his time, surely?
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
I'm just watching a Channel 5 documentary on Anne Boleyn, where Owen Jones is interviewed about Cromwell.
I'm just waiting for a call to be interviewed about Hereward the Wake's influence on early Norman times...
It’s good that they found Owen Jones to consult on Cromwell as there are absolutely no actual experts on him and the period and so clearly better to speak to someone who studied history a couple of decades ago and writes about modern class issues.
In its heyday BBC would have sent an outside broadcast unit complete with outriders up to Christ Church for 10 seconds of wisdom from Hugh Trevor-Roper because he was far too busy to go to London. It's a telling indication of how far they've fallen.
Urrm, it was Channel 5.
And every academic of note now has a nice computer setup with a convincing bookcase behind them so they can do talking head for a small, small fee..
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The demographic structure is more of an issue than the actual numbers. As a global issue it'll be more 2124 or 2224's rather than 2024's problem though.
I'm just watching a Channel 5 documentary on Anne Boleyn, where Owen Jones is interviewed about Cromwell.
I'm just waiting for a call to be interviewed about Hereward the Wake's influence on early Norman times...
It’s good that they found Owen Jones to consult on Cromwell as there are absolutely no actual experts on him and the period and so clearly better to speak to someone who studied history a couple of decades ago and writes about modern class issues.
In its heyday BBC would have sent an outside broadcast unit complete with outriders up to Christ Church for 10 seconds of wisdom from Hugh Trevor-Roper because he was far too busy to go to London. It's a telling indication of how far they've fallen.
Urrm, it was Channel 5.
There are still churches around of the Cromwell sort of style, but for those you would be in Northern Ireland, or certain fairly narrow and very serious traditions in England/Wales *.
* Not commenting on Scotland.
There are churches in Scotland who would regard Cromwell as Bells & Smells semi-Papist.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
I'm just watching a Channel 5 documentary on Anne Boleyn, where Owen Jones is interviewed about Cromwell.
I'm just waiting for a call to be interviewed about Hereward the Wake's influence on early Norman times...
It’s good that they found Owen Jones to consult on Cromwell as there are absolutely no actual experts on him and the period and so clearly better to speak to someone who studied history a couple of decades ago and writes about modern class issues.
In its heyday BBC would have sent an outside broadcast unit complete with outriders up to Christ Church for 10 seconds of wisdom from Hugh Trevor-Roper because he was far too busy to go to London. It's a telling indication of how far they've fallen.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
That's for last year; last month it was down to 0.65. In Seoul, it's 0.55.
The BBC has a very good article on the problem here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68402139 ..This bodes so badly for the country's economy, pension pot, and security that politicians have declared it "a national emergency". For nearly 20 years, successive governments have thrown money at the problem - 379.8 trillion KRW ($286bn; £226bn) to be exact.
Couples who have children are showered with cash, from monthly handouts to subsidised housing and free taxis. Hospital bills and even IVF treatments are covered, though only for those who are married. Such financial incentives have not worked..
The fundamental problem appears to be social attitudes (though housing and education pressures are part of it). ...This sits at the heart of the problem. Over the past 50 years, Korea's economy has developed at break-neck speed, propelling women into higher education and the workforce, and expanding their ambitions, but the roles of wife and mother have not evolved at nearly the same pace. Frustrated, Jungyeon began to observe other mothers. "I was like, 'Oh, my friend who's raising a child is also depressed and my friend across the street is depressed too' and I was like, 'Oh, this is a social phenomenon'."..
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The demographic structure is more of an issue than the actual numbers. As a global issue it'll be more 2124 or 2224's rather than 2024's problem though.
Yes - most industrialised societies have setup to assume that the working population supports the non-working population. With defined benefits, no less.
Hence the riots in France about raising the retirement age.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
His tactic on all metrics appears to be to make things as bad as possible, self-define that as the starting point, and then trumpet the fact that they aren't quite as bad as 6 months ago as some sort of success.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The demographic structure is more of an issue than the actual numbers. As a global issue it'll be more 2124 or 2224's rather than 2024's problem though.
Rather than worrying about big numbers and statist approaches, I think there's a lot to be said for focusing on individuals and increasing their ability to have the number of children they want. Focus on personal liberty!
In many parts of the world with high fertility rates, people do not have access to adequate family planning services. We should be working to allow people to control their own fertility. In other parts of the world with low fertility rates, people do have good access to family planning, but there are economic conditions that discourage them from having children, like high housing costs. We should be working to allow people of childbearing age to be able to make a decent living and afford housing, within a sustainable economy that won't wreck the environment.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
That's for last year; last month it was down to 0.65. In Seoul, it's 0.55.
The BBC has a very good article on the problem here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68402139 ..This bodes so badly for the country's economy, pension pot, and security that politicians have declared it "a national emergency". For nearly 20 years, successive governments have thrown money at the problem - 379.8 trillion KRW ($286bn; £226bn) to be exact.
Couples who have children are showered with cash, from monthly handouts to subsidised housing and free taxis. Hospital bills and even IVF treatments are covered, though only for those who are married. Such financial incentives have not worked..
The fundamental problem appears to be social attitudes (though housing and education pressures are part of it). ...This sits at the heart of the problem. Over the past 50 years, Korea's economy has developed at break-neck speed, propelling women into higher education and the workforce, and expanding their ambitions, but the roles of wife and mother have not evolved at nearly the same pace. Frustrated, Jungyeon began to observe other mothers. "I was like, 'Oh, my friend who's raising a child is also depressed and my friend across the street is depressed too' and I was like, 'Oh, this is a social phenomenon'."..
The inevitable result is that by 2200 or so, Seoul is going to look like Pripyat does now. Least they're doing their bit for global warming !
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The demographic structure is more of an issue than the actual numbers. As a global issue it'll be more 2124 or 2224's rather than 2024's problem though.
The latest UN prediction is that global population will peak in the late 2080s, so you'd expect the real demographic crisis to occur 60-70 years after that.
But we'll get into a beggar-thy-neighbour situation long before, with richer countries trying to make themselves the most attractive destination possible for immigrants. China are already starting to think about how to do so, it seems... and we might well find that in 30-40 years time our current focus on dissuading immigrants will look like a serious misstep.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
There's arguably an advantage in being among the first movers when it comes to falling birth rates - particularly if we manage to address the problem over the next decade or so.
Fixing housing would almost certainly help (also ultra high density living appears to inversely correlate with birth rates) - but we can probably learn some lessons from the Korean problems. Policy solutions only go so far; cultural effects seem to outweigh them.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
That news about Hairy Biker Dave myers is quite discombobulating. I thought he was now recovering?
Ah, sad. Sad. One of the most likeable tv personae
Pfffff
One of the most joyous TV cooking & travel programs since Floyd tbh.
Yes quite
Always the most genial and engaging of cooking shows. Their friendship looked real (and a friend knows them well and says it is). Inspired idea, brilliantly done
Its actually very hard to look ordinary but funny and warm on TV and he did it with his pal
I'm just watching a Channel 5 documentary on Anne Boleyn, where Owen Jones is interviewed about Cromwell.
I'm just waiting for a call to be interviewed about Hereward the Wake's influence on early Norman times...
It’s good that they found Owen Jones to consult on Cromwell as there are absolutely no actual experts on him and the period and so clearly better to speak to someone who studied history a couple of decades ago and writes about modern class issues.
In its heyday BBC would have sent an outside broadcast unit complete with outriders up to Christ Church for 10 seconds of wisdom from Hugh Trevor-Roper because he was far too busy to go to London. It's a telling indication of how far they've fallen.
Urrm, it was Channel 5.
There are still churches around of the Cromwell sort of style, but for those you would be in Northern Ireland, or certain fairly narrow and very serious traditions in England/Wales *.
* Not commenting on Scotland.
Building: Berwick-upon-Tweed - albeit pimped up badly in later centuries.
Style: he was an Independent, which has morphed its name and aggregated somewhat to Congregationalist today. He wasn't that extreme by the standards of his time, surely?
I have a slightly amusing story wrt Cromwell.
Years ago I was at a church in Nottingham just outside the Nottingham Castle; built around 1670. We moved out for about 18 months down the street to the Castle Gate Congregational Church (Congregational Federation HQ) whilst ours was being refurbished inside (they found a plague pit).
At the first service in the Congregational Church our vicar came out of the vestry and said "There's a picture of Oliver Cromwell in there; he pulled our old church down."
The history is that in the English Civil War the Royalists attacked Nottingham. When the Roundheads holed-up in the castle, the Royalists went up the tall tower of the previous medieval building and were able to shoot over the castle walls.
So afterwards when the Cavaliers had gone, Cromwell's man Colonel Hutchinson came out and had the old church demolished. The new one was built in 1671 - with a shorter tower.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The interesting thing is what happens after say 2080.
Let’s assume by then we’ve got climate change under control and not nuked ourselves out of existence or been replaced by AI.
It’s hard to imagine a world where birth rates, once fallen below replacement, go back up again. Extrapolate that trend and never mind 2000, after a few generations we get back to mid century levels, then 19th century levels, and by sheer mathematical logic within a couple of centuries or so humans become a vestigial species, occupying a small ecological niche concentrated in large cities surrounded by the archaeological remains of past civilisations. Like a sort of global version of the Mezzogiorno or Massif Central.
I mean I know we have morphed into Oliver (and Ireland, etc) but presumably Jones was being interviewed about Thomas.
I wondered the same thing. Now that Hilary Mantel is sadly dead the go to person for Thomas Cromwell is Diarmaid MacCulloch who does telly very well, and whose recent biog of T Cromwell is as good as it gets (given that the sources were systematically destroyed by Tudor thugs).
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Below replacement birthrates just imply a declining population, which is not the end of the world. There’s no reason to think the trend would continue until literal extinction.
Developed countries that allow their populations to decline might well end up in a better position than those that use immigration to change their demographics.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
There's arguably an advantage in being among the first movers when it comes to falling birth rates - particularly if we manage to address the problem over the next decade or so.
Fixing housing would almost certainly help (also ultra high density living appears to inversely correlate with birth rates) - but we can probably learn some lessons from the Korean problems. Policy solutions only go so far; cultural effects seem to outweigh them.
Putting people in tiny boxes makes them wonder if they have space for children? Who knew?
The drivers of extremely low birth rates are
- The dual expectation (career+child rearing) for women - Career effects for women - Housing cost - Childcare costs
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
His tactic on all metrics appears to be to make things as bad as possible, self-define that as the starting point, and then trumpet the fact that they aren't quite as bad as 6 months ago as some sort of success.
It is not easy to reduce debt when borrowing over £100 billion a year and counting. This is a pure conjuring trick.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The interesting thing is what happens after say 2080.
Let’s assume by then we’ve got climate under control and not nuked ourselves out of existence or been replaced by AI.
It’s hard to imagine a world where birth rates, once fallen below replacement, go back up again. Extrapolate that trend and never mind 2000, after a few generations we get back to mid century levels, then 19th century levels, and by sheer mathematical logic within a couple of centuries or so humans become a vestigial species, occupying a small ecological niche concentrated in large cities surrounded by the archaeological remains of past civilisations. Like a sort of global version of the Mezzogiorno or Massif Central.
Is it so hard to imagine the process reversing ? A more prosperous society which didn't make it difficult for working mothers (in contrast to the jarring example of S Korea) might be able to do so.
It's suggestive, for example, that on the relatively limited data available, WFH appears to correlate with somewhat increased birth rates.
I'm sure this will have been mentioned but a brilliant fifteen minutes of Gove's duplicity which ultimately led to where we are today. I think they're calling it 'The Butterfly Effect..."
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Below replacement birthrates just imply a declining population, which is not the end of the world. There’s no reason to think the trend would continue until literal extinction.
Developed countries that allow their populations to decline might well end up in a better position than those that use immigration to change their demographics.
Japan is an interesting pilot study. Tokyo has kept growing even as the country begins to shrink. Depopulation seems if anything to accelerate urbanisation, which in turn probably accelerates fertility decline.
The whole world might well replicate this at large scale. I wouldn’t be surprised if a 2150 world with a population back down to 4 or 5 billion still has a Singapore larger than it is today, or a Shanghai or Mumbai.
Countries will need to choose whether they want to be bustling and expensive hubs and melting pots, or quiet, affordable ageing backwaters.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The interesting thing is what happens after say 2080.
Let’s assume by then we’ve got climate change under control and not nuked ourselves out of existence or been replaced by AI.
It’s hard to imagine a world where birth rates, once fallen below replacement, go back up again. Extrapolate that trend and never mind 2000, after a few generations we get back to mid century levels, then 19th century levels, and by sheer mathematical logic within a couple of centuries or so humans become a vestigial species, occupying a small ecological niche concentrated in large cities surrounded by the archaeological remains of past civilisations. Like a sort of global version of the Mezzogiorno or Massif Central.
Very long term predictions are difficult to get right! The world will undoubtedly change in many ways. Instead of a top-down "have more babies" or "have fewer babies", let's try to make people's lives better. How does South Korea achieve social change around those old-fashioned expectations of women? How do we make housing affordable in the UK? How do we get condoms available to people in the Sahel?
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
That news about Hairy Biker Dave myers is quite discombobulating. I thought he was now recovering?
Ah, sad. Sad. One of the most likeable tv personae
Pfffff
One of the most joyous TV cooking & travel programs since Floyd tbh.
Yes quite
Always the most genial and engaging of cooking shows. Their friendship looked real (and a friend knows them well and says it is). Inspired idea, brilliantly done
Its actually very hard to look ordinary but funny and warm on TV and he did it with his pal
Pffff. Big fat PFFFF
Indeed, a contrast with two fat ladies which always looked (and was) contrived. A real shame.
It’s a genre which when done well is one of the most enjoyable on TV: the food travel show. Rick Stein is my other favourite example.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The interesting thing is what happens after say 2080.
Let’s assume by then we’ve got climate under control and not nuked ourselves out of existence or been replaced by AI.
It’s hard to imagine a world where birth rates, once fallen below replacement, go back up again. Extrapolate that trend and never mind 2000, after a few generations we get back to mid century levels, then 19th century levels, and by sheer mathematical logic within a couple of centuries or so humans become a vestigial species, occupying a small ecological niche concentrated in large cities surrounded by the archaeological remains of past civilisations. Like a sort of global version of the Mezzogiorno or Massif Central.
Is it so hard to imagine the process reversing ? A more prosperous society which didn't make it difficult for working mothers (in contrast to the jarring example of S Korea) might be able to do so.
It's suggestive, for example, that on the relatively limited data available, WFH appears to correlate with somewhat increased birth rates.
I could see it slowing, but above replacement level is a big ask.
That news about Hairy Biker Dave myers is quite discombobulating. I thought he was now recovering?
Ah, sad. Sad. One of the most likeable tv personae
Pfffff
Their current (now last obvs) tour of the west had a valedictory feel to it, even more piquant now. He looked incredibly frail but still bubbling with enthusiasm.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The interesting thing is what happens after say 2080.
Let’s assume by then we’ve got climate under control and not nuked ourselves out of existence or been replaced by AI.
It’s hard to imagine a world where birth rates, once fallen below replacement, go back up again. Extrapolate that trend and never mind 2000, after a few generations we get back to mid century levels, then 19th century levels, and by sheer mathematical logic within a couple of centuries or so humans become a vestigial species, occupying a small ecological niche concentrated in large cities surrounded by the archaeological remains of past civilisations. Like a sort of global version of the Mezzogiorno or Massif Central.
Is it so hard to imagine the process reversing ? A more prosperous society which didn't make it difficult for working mothers (in contrast to the jarring example of S Korea) might be able to do so.
It's suggestive, for example, that on the relatively limited data available, WFH appears to correlate with somewhat increased birth rates.
It's interesting to speculate about whether a push towards a more sustainable 'cottage industry' pattern of employment would help - it would certainly alleviate three of Malmesbury's four drivers of low birth rates (housing costs being the obvious exception!)
How likely is that to happen, though? The current govt seems determined to discourage WFH at all possible costs, and the 'you must be in the office at least 50% of the time' stuff being pushed by many big employers seems destined to leave people facing the worst of both worlds...
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.
Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.
Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
Why would he bother? It would be as pointless me issuing my plans for managing the England football team to world cup glory in 2026.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Wouldn't the best way to refute the theory be to ensure that options 1 and 3 are given greater consideration?
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
The problem with all those pledges is most people see the current situation as "well, it's so bad, it can't really get any worse" and blame the current administration for that state of affairs.
The country is presently up shit creek without a paddle, Sunak pointing to the small plastic teaspoon he's been able to procure to lift us out of it will hardly help.
That news about Hairy Biker Dave myers is quite discombobulating. I thought he was now recovering?
Ah, sad. Sad. One of the most likeable tv personae
Pfffff
Their current (now last obvs) tour of the west had a valedictory feel to it, even more piquant now. He looked incredibly frail but still bubbling with enthusiasm.
Eeesh. I haven't seen it yet and now I'm not sure I want to (I was saving it for a rainy day, I like their shows quite a lot)
Now if I watch, it will be knowing that he died soon after - and was presumably dying as they made it? - which is not what I want from escapist TV. And they did brilliant escapist TV: meaningless but funny and diverting, and with some interesting travel, recipes and anecdotes on the way
I particularly remember one scene where they did a roadtrip down Route 66 and they were fed what was obviously the most hideous meal in history - rural American cuisine with all its carbs and tinned gunk and corn syrup weirdness - and Myers carried it off brilliantly, he was absolutely polite but with the tiniest raised eyebrow, and faintly sardonic voice, he let the viewer know how bad it was. Superbly done - and, again, not easy to do
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
Agreed. I don't think the public are sitting there rating Sunak on his pledges. They are, however, a convenient summary of real world issues that the public do care about: inflation, the NHS, immigration. If inflation were lower, the economy growing quickly, debt falling, NHS waiting lists coming down and the boats were stopped, the Tories would be polling much better.
I thought it would be interesting to look at YouGov's top issues polling. This is currently: The Economy 53% but falling (which covers the first 3 pledges), Health 47% and rising (pledge 4), Immigration & Asylum 38% and rising (pledge 5), Housing 22% and flat-ish, The environment 21% and flat-ish (latter two not covered by any pledges).
On the previous thread, someone suggested that the Trump immunity claim is "a crazy claim, but one that should be ruled on by the Supreme Court".
The court could indeed already have ruled, as did the federal appeals court, by summarily dismissing the appeal without a hearing.
They chose to hear arguments in the case - something they can only do if they believe the case has a reasonable chance of prevailing.
It is an abysmal lack of judgment.
Where is there any rule saying what the Supreme Court can and can’t do?
They can hear what they like.
I think this is important enough it needs the authority of a SC ruling. One would hope that CJ Roberts knows what he is doing
The court can, as I pointed out, rule without hearing the case. It could have done so this week. They could have ruled as did the federal appeals court.That would be a SC ruling in the matter, and binding precedent.
The court cannot, by their own rules, hear arguments in a case unless they accept their potential validity. By hearing the case they are taking seriously the argument that a President is immune to charges for any crimescommitted while in office; that is the basis of Trump's appeal.
I think you are putting too much weight on that interpretation
If they had ruled without hearing arguments it would have been dismissed as an invalid establishment fix. If they have heard all the arguments then they may convince more people that it is fair.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
That news about Hairy Biker Dave myers is quite discombobulating. I thought he was now recovering?
Ah, sad. Sad. One of the most likeable tv personae
Pfffff
Their current (now last obvs) tour of the west had a valedictory feel to it, even more piquant now. He looked incredibly frail but still bubbling with enthusiasm.
Eeesh. I haven't seen it yet and now I'm not sure I want to (I was saving it for a rainy day, I like their shows quite a lot)
Now if I watch, it will be knowing that he died soon after - and was presumably dying as they made it? - which is not what I want from escapist TV. And they did brilliant escapist TV: meaningless but funny and diverting, and with some interesting travel, recipes and anecdotes on the way
I particularly remember one scene where they did a roadtrip down Route 66 and they were fed what was obviously the most hideous meal in history - rural American cuisine with all its carbs and tinned gunk and corn syrup weirdness - and Myers carried it off brilliantly, he was absolutely polite but with the tiniest raised eyebrow, and faintly sardonic voice, he let the viewer know how bad it was. Superbly done - and, again, not easy to do
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
Been around since the Carboniferous, and not done much with that time, mind. That's 300+ Myr wasted. They need to extract their tarsus.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Why should we talk about the ravings of loons, rather than the actual issues?
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
Been around since the Carboniferous, and not done much with that time, mind. That's 300+ Myr wasted. They need to extract their tarsus.
Not done much! The world cockroach population is estimated at around 1-2.5 trillion. That puts human's a bit less than 8 billion to shame.
I've plotted TFR vs gdp (PPP)* per head and the graph is as you'd expect, Niger leading the way with TFR at a very low income and on the other side the likes of South Korea.
High TFR, high ppp per head:
Israel, Ireland, Guyana (Much higher ppp than actual gdp), Saudi Arabia.
Low(ish) gdp per head, low birthrate:
Ukraine, China, Bosnia.
* Wiki foonote
Footnotes There is no explicit "GDP (PPP) per capita" World estimate provided by the IMF. For this figure, the GDP (PPP) world value[6] has been divided by the global population according to the IMF.[12]
That news about Hairy Biker Dave myers is quite discombobulating. I thought he was now recovering?
Ah, sad. Sad. One of the most likeable tv personae
Pfffff
Their current (now last obvs) tour of the west had a valedictory feel to it, even more piquant now. He looked incredibly frail but still bubbling with enthusiasm.
Eeesh. I haven't seen it yet and now I'm not sure I want to (I was saving it for a rainy day, I like their shows quite a lot)
Now if I watch, it will be knowing that he died soon after - and was presumably dying as they made it? - which is not what I want from escapist TV. And they did brilliant escapist TV: meaningless but funny and diverting, and with some interesting travel, recipes and anecdotes on the way
I particularly remember one scene where they did a roadtrip down Route 66 and they were fed what was obviously the most hideous meal in history - rural American cuisine with all its carbs and tinned gunk and corn syrup weirdness - and Myers carried it off brilliantly, he was absolutely polite but with the tiniest raised eyebrow, and faintly sardonic voice, he let the viewer know how bad it was. Superbly done - and, again, not easy to do
Yes they both had fascinating backstories which, cleverly, they would only let you glimpse from time to time. eg the serious knowledge of modern art and architecture. They never lectured, it just emerged, now and again
Apparently Myers the Make-up was responsible for the white stripe across Adam Ant's face! (or so TwiX says)
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Why should we talk about the ravings of loons, rather than the actual issues?
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
Why do we need to have a target population? Governments for centuries didn't.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.
Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
Gimmicks for Daily Mail readers. Cash for the connected ultra wealthy. Navigating a line of whatever is possible as the Tory party pulls itself between the Refuks, One Nations and all the many subgroups in between.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
Possibly.
Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.
SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Why should we talk about the ravings of loons, rather than the actual issues?
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
Why do we need to have a target population? Governments for centuries didn't.
It seems fairly sensible to have at least a plan of what population looks like in 10-50 years time so we can build the right infrastructure.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
There's arguably an advantage in being among the first movers when it comes to falling birth rates - particularly if we manage to address the problem over the next decade or so.
Fixing housing would almost certainly help (also ultra high density living appears to inversely correlate with birth rates) - but we can probably learn some lessons from the Korean problems. Policy solutions only go so far; cultural effects seem to outweigh them.
Putting people in tiny boxes makes them wonder if they have space for children? Who knew?
The drivers of extremely low birth rates are
- The dual expectation (career+child rearing) for women - Career effects for women - Housing cost - Childcare costs
When I look at our collapsing birth rates I think about our own situation and wonder what factors helped us to have three children. 1. Enough money to afford a big enough house and early years childcare. 2. Getting together young enough (18/19) to have plenty of time to have a nice life as a couple before starting to have children at 30, leaving plenty of fertile years to reproduce. 3. My wife working in a sector where flexible working, part time, wfh etc are the norm and the career penalty for having children is lower than elsewhere. 4. We like children and my wife enjoys pregnancy and the first year with a young baby.
1 and 3 are things the government can fix to some extent. Eg why withdraw benefits for the 3rd+ child? Affordable housing as always is a major problem here too. Flexible working rights are critical. 2 is harder - people take longer to settle down these days. People are pickier. Being single carries less stigma. Maybe these are good things. Stuff like housing and expensive student loan debt don't help though. 4 is more about society's values. Britain has always struck me as a bit anti child. Improving that attitude might help at the margins.
I’m posting this simply to illustrate that many of us travel all over the world, including in business, without the need of clogging up this political betting website with irrevelant travelogues.
Hypocrisy and irony? No because of the intent …
Have a nice day everyone and let’s hope GG does not win tonight. Whatever one’s persuasion he is simply an awful little man.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
The world population is still increasing. We're not going to "run out of other people's birth rate" for quite some time.
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
The demographic structure is more of an issue than the actual numbers. As a global issue it'll be more 2124 or 2224's rather than 2024's problem though.
Rather than worrying about big numbers and statist approaches, I think there's a lot to be said for focusing on individuals and increasing their ability to have the number of children they want. Focus on personal liberty!
In many parts of the world with high fertility rates, people do not have access to adequate family planning services. We should be working to allow people to control their own fertility. In other parts of the world with low fertility rates, people do have good access to family planning, but there are economic conditions that discourage them from having children, like high housing costs. We should be working to allow people of childbearing age to be able to make a decent living and afford housing, within a sustainable economy that won't wreck the environment.
I think, as the South Korean example shows, this is generally an issue about being nice to women and dealing with misogyny. There's been some suggestion that the missing piece of the puzzle in areas like Europe might be on supporting women to have children while single - a lot of women run out of biological time trying to find a suitable co-parent.
The demonisation of single parents at the beginning of the Blair government might have been precisely the opposite of what was needed, though this support will have to be more than financial. Being a single parent is hard, and children do better with a second parent.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Why should we talk about the ravings of loons, rather than the actual issues?
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
Why do we need to have a target population? Governments for centuries didn't.
A planned population can lead to much improved services. When we plan infrastructure, we plan for three or four decades ahead. How can your water company provide enough water and sewage services if they've no idea how many people they will be serving? How can we ensure there are enough houses, schools, hospitals et al if we've no idea how many people will be here?
Infrastructure takes years, or even decades to build. At the moment it's lagging because no-one can properly plan anything.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
There's arguably an advantage in being among the first movers when it comes to falling birth rates - particularly if we manage to address the problem over the next decade or so.
Fixing housing would almost certainly help (also ultra high density living appears to inversely correlate with birth rates) - but we can probably learn some lessons from the Korean problems. Policy solutions only go so far; cultural effects seem to outweigh them.
Putting people in tiny boxes makes them wonder if they have space for children? Who knew?
The drivers of extremely low birth rates are
- The dual expectation (career+child rearing) for women - Career effects for women - Housing cost - Childcare costs
When I look at our collapsing birth rates I think about our own situation and wonder what factors helped us to have three children. 1. Enough money to afford a big enough house and early years childcare. 2. Getting together young enough (18/19) to have plenty of time to have a nice life as a couple before starting to have children at 30, leaving plenty of fertile years to reproduce. 3. My wife working in a sector where flexible working, part time, wfh etc are the norm and the career penalty for having children is lower than elsewhere. 4. We like children and my wife enjoys pregnancy and the first year with a young baby.
1 and 3 are things the government can fix to some extent. Eg why withdraw benefits for the 3rd+ child? Affordable housing as always is a major problem here too. Flexible working rights are critical. 2 is harder - people take longer to settle down these days. People are pickier. Being single carries less stigma. Maybe these are good things. Stuff like housing and expensive student loan debt don't help though. 4 is more about society's values. Britain has always struck me as a bit anti child. Improving that attitude might help at the margins.
Isn't 4 about individual taste too ?
To be honest we've found 1 - 2 much better than 0 - 1 which we both found ineffably boring.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
Possibly.
Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.
SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
Your stance makes no sense though. Reducing the human population through lower birth rates doesn't mean killing off any of today's living human beings. None of the list of who you care about will be affected by that.
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Below replacement birthrates just imply a declining population, which is not the end of the world. There’s no reason to think the trend would continue until literal extinction.
Developed countries that allow their populations to decline might well end up in a better position than those that use immigration to change their demographics.
Japan is an interesting pilot study. Tokyo has kept growing even as the country begins to shrink. Depopulation seems if anything to accelerate urbanisation, which in turn probably accelerates fertility decline.
The whole world might well replicate this at large scale. I wouldn’t be surprised if a 2150 world with a population back down to 4 or 5 billion still has a Singapore larger than it is today, or a Shanghai or Mumbai.
Countries will need to choose whether they want to be bustling and expensive hubs and melting pots, or quiet, affordable ageing backwaters.
It's interesting because in domestic terms, we've had net emigration from London over the last 25 years. Perhaps the cost of having high immigration is that we've missed out on a wave of further domestic urbanisation that would otherwise have happened as our economy moved towards being more service oriented.
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Yes. FWIW, I don't think the public give a stuff about whether these are Sunak's pledges or not, although they will care about most of them as issues in their own right (not the debt one, which is fortunate as there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of it being met). But No 10 will think they matter.
The far bigger issue is a total absence of Sunak's vision for the next parliament.
Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
Yes. A Conservative government isn't for anything at the moment. That said, I couldn't tell you what a Starmer government would be for either.
I’m posting this simply to illustrate that many of us travel all over the world, including in business, without the need of clogging up this political betting website with irrevelant travelogues.
Hypocrisy and irony? No because of the intent …
Have a nice day everyone and let’s hope GG does not win tonight. Whatever one’s persuasion he is simply an awful little man.
You need to work on your angles. Put your glass of bubbles in the front of the photo, to give it life and scale, and you've posted too many photos of the same scene
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Why should we talk about the ravings of loons, rather than the actual issues?
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
Why do we need to have a target population? Governments for centuries didn't.
A planned population can lead to much improved services. When we plan infrastructure, we plan for three or four decades ahead. How can your water company provide enough water and sewage services if they've no idea how many people they will be serving? How can we ensure there are enough houses, schools, hospitals et al if we've no idea how many people will be here?
Infrastructure takes years, or even decades to build. At the moment it's lagging because no-one can properly plan anything.
Quite - if we go laissez-faire on population, but try and plan everything else, we get a fuckup
Quite simply, at the moment we are trying to run a country with a developing world style population increase, but with a no/low infrastructural development policy.
I've plotted TFR vs gdp (PPP)* per head and the graph is as you'd expect, Niger leading the way with TFR at a very low income and on the other side the likes of South Korea.
High TFR, high ppp per head:
Israel, Ireland, Guyana (Much higher ppp than actual gdp), Saudi Arabia.
Low(ish) gdp per head, low birthrate:
Ukraine, China, Bosnia.
* Wiki foonote
Footnotes There is no explicit "GDP (PPP) per capita" World estimate provided by the IMF. For this figure, the GDP (PPP) world value[6] has been divided by the global population according to the IMF.[12]
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Why should we talk about the ravings of loons, rather than the actual issues?
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
Why do we need to have a target population? Governments for centuries didn't.
If you want to plan everything else, *but* population, how does this work?
Or should we let people build railways etc on a "today I feel like" basis?
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
🙂
But Labour no longer have a policy to scrap non dom status. See my previous post.
Under their new flag “fiscal prudence or death” Labour realise they cannot get scrapping nom dom bringing in assured promise of money past the OBR and City as confirmed extra money every year, and realise the damage it will cause scrapping it, so Labour are now keeping it, only calling it another name to pretend they scrapped it as promised.
Rather than “political genius” from Tories, is the truth here a sign of their struggle and desperation to cobble together legitimate funding for the tax cuts?
Much more that than 4D chess. The reality is that with borrowing as high as it currently is, tax cuts are a joke anyway.
Unfortunately, they are the lucky rabbit's foot for the Conservatives. (Sorry for bringing it up, Moon), so they have to happen, whatever the effect on the rabbit (sorry again).
But you do finally agree with me about the 4D chess at play over timing of the next general election?
Those who want Tories to get the worst possible result, perhaps wipe out, trying to influence it to much later in year - talk up and tempt, like siren ferrets sitting on rocks and hiding their teeth, wait till later in the year where you can meet your pledges - and those who care about the party and wish to give the Conservatives the best possible result to recover from, suggesting this is May 2nd before sailing into choppy waters through summer and autumn.
Halcyon birds nest in summer, just like humans attracted by calm look of the weather and water. But however you delve into this and analyse it, this summer offers our sitting government no respite at all.
There is only one person who decides when the next general election is, and that's the PM. He will be much less concerned about 'building a base to recover from' than winning or losing. Losing by 200 rather than 175 is much, much less of a concern (and wholly speculative as we can never know the reality of the alternative). He'd be out either way. I also doubt that he will necessarily expect the Tories' rating to get worse over the summer, pointing to inflation falling, energy bills falling and so on. He'll probably also think that he can get a grip on the small-boat immigration, which is more optimistic but PMs are invariably optimistic.
Either way, an election now results in an absolute battering. Maybe the Tories can recover some of that in an election campaign - but again, if they can recover it in a campaign in April, then they can also do so in a campaign in Sept or Oct.
I see no case from No 10's point of view for suffering a landslide defeat now when there's the chance of improvement later.
Indeed. Sunak's pledges were...
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
SKS is 0/10 on his Leadership Pledges and ?/5 on his latest missions
? as they are open to interpretation and cant be achieved until after the GE
I’m posting this simply to illustrate that many of us travel all over the world, including in business, without the need of clogging up this political betting website with irrevelant travelogues.
Hypocrisy and irony? No because of the intent …
Have a nice day everyone and let’s hope GG does not win tonight. Whatever one’s persuasion he is simply an awful little man.
You need to work on your angles. Put your glass of bubbles in the front of the photo, to give it life and scale, and you've posted too many photos of the same scene
But a modestly promising start
Way too generous a review.
"1 star I would give this travel update 0 stars if I could! If I wanted to see boring pictures of a fridge I would just go into my kitchen and take some on my phone, and they would be more interesting than this rubbish. Also - no attempt to pretend that you are leading a great life to hide the emptiness in your soul"
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
Yes, we need to discuss this great replacement theory.
1) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing the birth rate is racist crazy talk 2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense. 3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
None of this is at the core of the Great Replacement Theory. It isnt what happens or who moves where. The basis of the Theory rests on which masterminds are directing all of those people to move and why. Once you understand that you have a chance of contributing to the argument in a way that does not risk you looking in very, VERY, bad company indeed
Why should we talk about the ravings of loons, rather than the actual issues?
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
Why do we need to have a target population? Governments for centuries didn't.
I think it's fair to say that there's usually been an implicit acceptance that 'more is better', at least in the modern era.
Exceptions - the Inclosure Acts, Highland Clearances, Corn Laws (and the Great Famine) - have all been disasters. The 1946-7 plans for a potential siege economy as an alternative to the Anglo-American loan might have been worse still.
If we are to get ahead of the curve, and work out how to successfully live with a decreased population, then we probably do need to put some deliberate thought into it...
Extinction level events in 3 generations. South Korea birthrate, now 0.7 per woman.
Is this maths approx correct (rounding upwards)?
A group of 200 South Koreans, 100 female, 100 male, will have 70 babies.
That group of 70, 35 male 35 female, will have 25 babies.
That group of 25, 13 f and 13 m, will have 10 babies.
That group of 10, 5f and 5 m, will have 4 babies....and so on.
Now that the UK has joined the race to get below replacement levels (now about 1.5) should we be worried?
A reason to celebrate.
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Your attitude is pretty short-sighted.
The total opposite. The long-term prospects for the planet, its flora and fauna are best served by having a heck of a lot fewer humans buggering things up.
If humans die out then I don't see much hope of life on earth surviving the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years.
Plenty of time for some other species to evolve advanced intelligence, then develop spaceflight and stellar engineering. Probably cockroaches. Super-intelligent, giant cockroaches.
Possibly.
Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.
SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
You were talking about “the sun becoming a red giant in 5 billion years”. I don’t think that’s going to affect your “immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me”, or indeed even “humans in general” (we will have long evolved into a different species by then).
Comments
Hopefully he will have been stripped of his assets by New York/put into default by his lenders long before the Supreme Court ever gets round to deciding he had no Presidential immunity. E Jean Carroll's lawyers can start going after his assets next week if he hasn't found the $85m cash/bond to support an appeal.
And if he has found the money - which dodgy government has bailed him out and has a potential US President in their pocket? A re-working of that Ed Miliband/Alex Salmond poster might be coming from the Dems...
Michael Gove has been placed under investigation by parliament's standards watchdog.
It relates to the housing secretary's register of financial interests.
Further details will remain confidential until the inquiry is concluded - and those under investigation are barred from discussing the allegations.
https://news.sky.com/story/michael-gove-under-investigation-by-standards-watchdog-13082996
In those circs looking for a 'local' fix I think you should have a look at a thing called a Cold Water Accumulator. It is a tank of water held at mains pressure that maintains pressure / boosts the flow when the mains is not supplying enough - ie a local mains pressure reservoir. Size is specified depending on your system and demand. They are normally plumbed in before anything divides off the supply inside your house aiui. Consider whether you want a slightly larger one than might normally be advised, to be sure - perhaps "one size up" would only add 10-15% of cost.
I can't comment on your neighbour's pump without knowing the installation - it may be worth asking him if he has one of the above, in case that is evidence that it will not do it or his tank is too small! To me common sense says that the problem with just a pump or pump / very small tank is that it is playing grab extra water in a zero-sum game with the neighbours, rather than supplying an extra local resource of pre-accumulated water.
Questions and tips:
- Make sure you have reached your point of "satisfied you understand enough" before getting anything.
- When talking to your plumber, review your system to be sure that there is nothing incompatible there, or that will prevent the benefit (eg types of shower, central heating setup etc).
- If you have a water softening system, talk your plumber through that. I have heard of issues with eg modest pressure differences each side of some water softeners.
- If you have detailed questions, ask them over at buildhub.org.uk, which is a community owned self-build / renovation forum where I am on the mod team (name: Ferdinand).
There is a decent explanation of CWAs here:
https://pumpexpress.co.uk/explaining-cold-water-accumulators/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/20/michael-gove-failed-to-register-hospitality-from-donor-whose-firm-he-referred-for-ppe-contracts
• Halve inflation - this should continue to improve with time whatever Sunak does.
• Grow the economy - this is expected to improve with time. We're in recession: you'd expect us to come out of recession.
• Reduce debt - also expected to improve with time on current figures, although dependent on budget.
• Cut NHS waiting lists and times - some reason to believe it will improve on current figures.
• Stop the boats - :shrug:
He's 1/5 right now. He could be up to 2 or 3 in a few months with a bit of luck.
Mr Sunak is already seen as a squatter (by plenty on the right too) - spinning it out to January would mean the Opposition ground game would be a cherry on the cake rather than electoral necessity
2) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing immigration to compensate is just common sense.
3) We have a collapsing population pyramid, but talking about increasing education and automation to compensate is stupid or something.
Birth rates are nearly universally falling - the countries that are above 2.1 included. What's the plan when we run out of other people's birth rate?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0012qgc
* Not commenting on Scotland.
Ah, sad. Sad. One of the most likeable tv personae
Pfffff
Style: he was an Independent, which has morphed its name and aggregated somewhat to Congregationalist today. He wasn't that extreme by the standards of his time, surely?
If the world population starts falling, I'm not seeing the problem. The world population has been lower than it is today... well, for always. There is no necessity for the world population to constantly increase. If the world goes back to the population it had in, say, 2000, is that inherently a problem?
Immigration will actually help this though...
In Seoul, it's 0.55.
The BBC has a very good article on the problem here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68402139
..This bodes so badly for the country's economy, pension pot, and security that politicians have declared it "a national emergency".
For nearly 20 years, successive governments have thrown money at the problem - 379.8 trillion KRW ($286bn; £226bn) to be exact.
Couples who have children are showered with cash, from monthly handouts to subsidised housing and free taxis. Hospital bills and even IVF treatments are covered, though only for those who are married.
Such financial incentives have not worked..
The fundamental problem appears to be social attitudes (though housing and education pressures are part of it).
...This sits at the heart of the problem.
Over the past 50 years, Korea's economy has developed at break-neck speed, propelling women into higher education and the workforce, and expanding their ambitions, but the roles of wife and mother have not evolved at nearly the same pace.
Frustrated, Jungyeon began to observe other mothers. "I was like, 'Oh, my friend who's raising a child is also depressed and my friend across the street is depressed too' and I was like, 'Oh, this is a social phenomenon'."..
If only the rest of the world would follow the shining example set by the good people of South Korea, the planet would be substantially rid of us in a couple of hundred years.
Hence the riots in France about raising the retirement age.
In many parts of the world with high fertility rates, people do not have access to adequate family planning services. We should be working to allow people to control their own fertility. In other parts of the world with low fertility rates, people do have good access to family planning, but there are economic conditions that discourage them from having children, like high housing costs. We should be working to allow people of childbearing age to be able to make a decent living and afford housing, within a sustainable economy that won't wreck the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Sardinian_regional_election
But we'll get into a beggar-thy-neighbour situation long before, with richer countries trying to make themselves the most attractive destination possible for immigrants. China are already starting to think about how to do so, it seems... and we might well find that in 30-40 years time our current focus on dissuading immigrants will look like a serious misstep.
Fixing housing would almost certainly help (also ultra high density living appears to inversely correlate with birth rates) - but we can probably learn some lessons from the Korean problems. Policy solutions only go so far; cultural effects seem to outweigh them.
Always the most genial and engaging of cooking shows. Their friendship looked real (and a friend knows them well and says it is). Inspired idea, brilliantly done
Its actually very hard to look ordinary but funny and warm on TV and he did it with his pal
Pffff. Big fat PFFFF
Years ago I was at a church in Nottingham just outside the Nottingham Castle; built around 1670. We moved out for about 18 months down the street to the Castle Gate Congregational Church (Congregational Federation HQ) whilst ours was being refurbished inside (they found a plague pit).
At the first service in the Congregational Church our vicar came out of the vestry and said "There's a picture of Oliver Cromwell in there; he pulled our old church down."
The history is that in the English Civil War the Royalists attacked Nottingham. When the Roundheads holed-up in the castle, the Royalists went up the tall tower of the previous medieval building and were able to shoot over the castle walls.
So afterwards when the Cavaliers had gone, Cromwell's man Colonel Hutchinson came out and had the old church demolished. The new one was built in 1671 - with a shorter tower.
Let’s assume by then we’ve got climate change under control and not nuked ourselves out of existence or been replaced by AI.
It’s hard to imagine a world where birth rates, once fallen below replacement, go back up again. Extrapolate that trend and never mind 2000, after a few generations we get back to mid century levels, then 19th century levels, and by sheer mathematical logic within a couple of centuries or so humans become a vestigial species, occupying a small ecological niche concentrated in large cities surrounded by the archaeological remains of past civilisations. Like a sort of global version of the Mezzogiorno or Massif Central.
Developed countries that allow their populations to decline might well end up in a better position than those that use immigration to change their demographics.
The drivers of extremely low birth rates are
- The dual expectation (career+child rearing) for women
- Career effects for women
- Housing cost
- Childcare costs
A more prosperous society which didn't make it difficult for working mothers (in contrast to the jarring example of S Korea) might be able to do so.
It's suggestive, for example, that on the relatively limited data available, WFH appears to correlate with somewhat increased birth rates.
The whole world might well replicate this at large scale. I wouldn’t be surprised if a 2150 world with a population back down to 4 or 5 billion still has a Singapore larger than it is today, or a Shanghai or Mumbai.
Countries will need to choose whether they want to be bustling and expensive hubs and melting pots, or quiet, affordable ageing backwaters.
It’s a genre which when done well is one of the most enjoyable on TV: the food travel show. Rick Stein is my other favourite example.
How likely is that to happen, though? The current govt seems determined to discourage WFH at all possible costs, and the 'you must be in the office at least 50% of the time' stuff being pushed by many big employers seems destined to leave people facing the worst of both worlds...
Just what exactly is his prospectus to the country?
The country is presently up shit creek without a paddle, Sunak pointing to the small plastic teaspoon he's been able to procure to lift us out of it will hardly help.
Now if I watch, it will be knowing that he died soon after - and was presumably dying as they made it? - which is not what I want from escapist TV. And they did brilliant escapist TV: meaningless but funny and diverting, and with some interesting travel, recipes and anecdotes on the way
I particularly remember one scene where they did a roadtrip down Route 66 and they were fed what was obviously the most hideous meal in history - rural American cuisine with all its carbs and tinned gunk and corn syrup weirdness - and Myers carried it off brilliantly, he was absolutely polite but with the tiniest raised eyebrow, and faintly sardonic voice, he let the viewer know how bad it was. Superbly done - and, again, not easy to do
RIP 50% of the Hairy Bikers
I thought it would be interesting to look at YouGov's top issues polling. This is currently: The Economy 53% but falling (which covers the first 3 pledges), Health 47% and rising (pledge 4), Immigration & Asylum 38% and rising (pledge 5), Housing 22% and flat-ish, The environment 21% and flat-ish (latter two not covered by any pledges).
If they had ruled without hearing arguments it would have been dismissed as an invalid establishment fix. If they have heard all the arguments then they may convince more people that it is fair.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68433675
I think that we should discuss what the target population of the UK would look like. Then discuss the options for the demographic pyramid.
High TFR, high ppp per head:
Israel, Ireland, Guyana (Much higher ppp than actual gdp), Saudi Arabia.
Low(ish) gdp per head, low birthrate:
Ukraine, China, Bosnia.
* Wiki foonote
Footnotes
There is no explicit "GDP (PPP) per capita" World estimate provided by the IMF. For this figure, the GDP (PPP) world value[6] has been divided by the global population according to the IMF.[12]
Apparently Myers the Make-up was responsible for the white stripe across Adam Ant's face! (or so TwiX says)
Cash for the connected ultra wealthy.
Navigating a line of whatever is possible as the Tory party pulls itself between the Refuks, One Nations and all the many subgroups in between.
Still, I care most about my immediate family, then close friends, other family, friends, people around me, humans in general, animals that show some signs of awareness, and so on through animals that I actively dislike (mosquitoes), then plants I don't have much feeling for, bacteria, the mould growing on my bathroom ceiling, stuff that I wouldn't offer any humans to die or suffer for.
SandyRentool seems to care about 1) SandyRentool (otherwise why is they still around?) 2) other lifeforms, and only 3) other human beings. Just seems an extremely selfish attitude to me.
1. Enough money to afford a big enough house and early years childcare.
2. Getting together young enough (18/19) to have plenty of time to have a nice life as a couple before starting to have children at 30, leaving plenty of fertile years to reproduce.
3. My wife working in a sector where flexible working, part time, wfh etc are the norm and the career penalty for having children is lower than elsewhere.
4. We like children and my wife enjoys pregnancy and the first year with a young baby.
1 and 3 are things the government can fix to some extent. Eg why withdraw benefits for the 3rd+ child? Affordable housing as always is a major problem here too. Flexible working rights are critical.
2 is harder - people take longer to settle down these days. People are pickier. Being single carries less stigma. Maybe these are good things. Stuff like housing and expensive student loan debt don't help though.
4 is more about society's values. Britain has always struck me as a bit anti child. Improving that attitude might help at the margins.
Hypocrisy and irony? No because of the intent …
Have a nice day everyone and let’s hope GG does not win tonight. Whatever one’s persuasion he is simply an awful little man.
The demonisation of single parents at the beginning of the Blair government might have been precisely the opposite of what was needed, though this support will have to be more than financial. Being a single parent is hard, and children do better with a second parent.
Infrastructure takes years, or even decades to build. At the moment it's lagging because no-one can properly plan anything.
To be honest we've found 1 - 2 much better than 0 - 1 which we both found ineffably boring.
But a modestly promising start
"The father of a teenage boy who murdered Brianna Ghey has been jailed for 15 months after pleading guilty to sex offences."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68436434
Quite simply, at the moment we are trying to run a country with a developing world style population increase, but with a no/low infrastructural development policy.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/if-biden-loses-in-november-don-t-blame-voters-who-are-angry-over-gaza/ar-BB1j2VKn?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=1be2e54fc0df4b278e8d437a8d7d05de&ei=18
Or should we let people build railways etc on a "today I feel like" basis?
? as they are open to interpretation and cant be achieved until after the GE
"1 star
I would give this travel update 0 stars if I could! If I wanted to see boring pictures of a fridge I would just go into my kitchen and take some on my phone, and they would be more interesting than this rubbish. Also - no attempt to pretend that you are leading a great life to hide the emptiness in your soul"
Exceptions - the Inclosure Acts, Highland Clearances, Corn Laws (and the Great Famine) - have all been disasters. The 1946-7 plans for a potential siege economy as an alternative to the Anglo-American loan might have been worse still.
If we are to get ahead of the curve, and work out how to successfully live with a decreased population, then we probably do need to put some deliberate thought into it...