Why things can get worse for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

System

Why things can get worse for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

NEW: One in six Tory voters are likely to be dead by the next electionAssuming nothing else changes, the total impact of demographic change alone would mean +29 seats for Labour and -34 for the Conservatives @Smyth_Chris @thetimes https://t.co/F8RZrTAdb8 pic.twitter.com/qviNev6dfV

Read the full story here

DavidL

Yeah but the old are the growing part of our society so....

Where they are in real trouble is that generation rent are far less likely to turn Tory as they get older than the first time buyers of my generation and the one after it. By allowing home ownership to go beyond the reach of so many they have burnt the seed corn of the next generation of Tories.

Alanbrooke

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

Cicero

Alanbrooke said:

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

IDS was both extreme and inept. With hindsight, the party should have been quietly put to sleep then.

Alanbrooke

Cicero said:

Alanbrooke said:

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

IDS was both extreme and inept. With hindsight, the party should have been quietly put to sleep then.

What or who would have replaced them in your view ?

RochdalePioneers

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

TheScreamingEagles

The shade here.

Joey Barton has been charged with making ‘malicious communications’ towards ex-England star Eni Aluko

Barton has repeatedly criticised Aluko, who has 102 caps for England

Meanwhile, he once played 12 minutes for the Three Lions

https://x.com/MetroUK/status/1815369412465025116

Icarus

Seems appropriate that the Conservative leadership result will be announced on 2nd November - The Day of the Dead.

TimS

Alanbrooke said:

Cicero said:

Alanbrooke said:

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

IDS was both extreme and inept. With hindsight, the party should have been quietly put to sleep then.

What or who would have replaced them in your view ?

Given he said the party should have been quietly put to sleep then, presumably nobody?

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

The Taiwan article I posted in the last thread suggests a different paradigm.

https://alethios.substack.com/p/unexplored-unsaid
...Curiously, TSMC stands apart here. Their Taiwanese workforce accounts for a staggering 1.8% of births in Taiwan (and growing quickly, up from 1.4% in 2019), despite being just 0.3% of the population. After adjusting for demographic differences, I estimate10 that TSMC employees have 2.8x more children than the national average, giving a TFR of around 2.45 children per woman. This is especially noteworthy since every statistical indicator predicts lower-than-average fertility. Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average...

TimS

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

Changing the sex ratio so that there is one man for every say 5 or 6 women might work well - women in charge and getting the work done, male violence much reduced, but the remaining straight males get to lounge around, play football, crack dad-jokes or show off their pub quiz knowledge under the covetous gaze of admiring females.

Like lions in their prides - seems to work for them.

Eabhal

DavidL said:

Yeah but the old are the growing part of our society so....

Where they are in real trouble is that generation rent are far less likely to turn Tory as they get older than the first time buyers of my generation and the one after it. By allowing home ownership to go beyond the reach of so many they have burnt the seed corn of the next generation of Tories.

OTOH, they do stunningly well with landlords and outright owners. Unfortunately, these kinds of people tend to rely on the NHS more than most...

The structural issue is that there are fewer people with mortgages now, so the Tories need to win over a much bigger proportion of them or else start to target renters.

Alanbrooke

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

BartholomewRoberts

Alanbrooke said:

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne took some positive steps to boost aspiration and home ownership which was cratering under Blair and Brown.

Price/income ratios under them stabilised and started to marginally fall again, despite the low interest rates, from the peaks under Blair and Brown and home ownership rates started to rise again.

The problem is that was too little. Under Boris the party had some good ideas with planning reforms but the rebellion by May et al killed that stone dead and then Sunak made things even worse.

They knew what the problem was, but didn't fix it.

another_richard

This is what happens when your prioritise older voters at the expense of younger voters and stop being the party of aspiration.

For example by tripling university tuition fees at the same time as triple locking pensions.

Some of us warned at the time that the George Osborne strategy would bring long term damage to the Conservatives.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. B, that's remarkable, but doesn't the end actually agree with me?

Namely, "Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average..."

We see in Korea how horrendous expectations for both men and women to work extremely hard can be for child-raising (this is exacerbated by very high living costs too). It'd be intriguing to know just why Taiwan bucks that trend.

Mr. S, it's fascinating to consider whether such a ratio would see men empowered or oppressed. An ugly man in that scenario would probably just be a labour slave. Ages ago, I tried to work out how a medieval-ish society with a huge number of women to men would work. My conclusion was it would be ****ed, because any disease or war would dramatically shaft the demographics. Men are, in that sense, far more expendable.

Alanbrooke

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne took some positive steps to boost aspiration and home ownership which was cratering under Blair and Brown.

Price/income ratios under them stabilised and started to marginally fall again, despite the low interest rates, from the peaks under Blair and Brown and home ownership rates started to rise again.

The problem is that was too little. Under Boris the party had some good ideas with planning reforms but the rebellion by May et al killed that stone dead and then Sunak made things even worse.

They knew what the problem was, but didn't fix it.

Osborne dicked about with over complex schemes to manage the housing market.

He ducked the issues that the country needed. Build substantially more houses, invest in the infrastructure to go with them and get industry moving.

Benpointer

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

Interesting theory but I think it falls on "Women also tend to want to marry up." Dare I suggest you might be subconsciously stereotyping a bit there?

In a world of marked gender inequality that may have been the case, and may have been a sensible strategy but these days, where's the evidence?

another_richard

DavidL said:

Yeah but the old are the growing part of our society so....

Where they are in real trouble is that generation rent are far less likely to turn Tory as they get older than the first time buyers of my generation and the one after it. By allowing home ownership to go beyond the reach of so many they have burnt the seed corn of the next generation of Tories.

The places that have swung towards the Conservatives look like they correspond to those with affordable housing.

Whereas their much worse performance in southern England compared with 1997 would also match areas of housing unaffordability.

Foxy

It's a sobering figure in the header, the Tories needing to recruit a million voters just to stand still, and a further million in the parliament after that.

It really is hard to identify anything that they offer to people of working age, and it isn't just economics. The youngest boomers are now 60, and culturally they seem anathema To Gen X, Millenials and Gen Z.

It seems that rather like taste in clothes and music that taste in politics now is part of people's persona for life. Politics is now a cohort effect rather than an age effect.

Benpointer

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

The Taiwan article I posted in the last thread suggests a different paradigm.

https://alethios.substack.com/p/unexplored-unsaid
...Curiously, TSMC stands apart here. Their Taiwanese workforce accounts for a staggering 1.8% of births in Taiwan (and growing quickly, up from 1.4% in 2019), despite being just 0.3% of the population. After adjusting for demographic differences, I estimate10 that TSMC employees have 2.8x more children than the national average, giving a TFR of around 2.45 children per woman. This is especially noteworthy since every statistical indicator predicts lower-than-average fertility. Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average...

What's TSMC?

Alanbrooke

another_richard said:

This is what happens when your prioritise older voters at the expense of younger voters and stop being the party of aspiration.

For example by tripling university tuition fees at the same time as triple locking pensions.

Some of us warned at the time that the George Osborne strategy would bring long term damage to the Conservatives.

So you make it easier for young people to go off for 3 years of debt fuelled bingeing and take them out of the workforce. And then you make it easier for oldies to retire earlier by having access to pensions at 55 instead of 65.

Further down the line you then start moaning about where have all the people we need to do jobs gone ?

Casino_Royale

Wokies are histrionic, blind, dumb and thick - even when presented with a nuanced argument.

We've clearly established that on the last thread.

Good. Glad we got that straight.

bondegezou

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

I am not aware of any evidence for this. I've not seen any reports of an increasing correlation between number of sexual partners and income.

Alanbrooke

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

The Taiwan article I posted in the last thread suggests a different paradigm.

https://alethios.substack.com/p/unexplored-unsaid
...Curiously, TSMC stands apart here. Their Taiwanese workforce accounts for a staggering 1.8% of births in Taiwan (and growing quickly, up from 1.4% in 2019), despite being just 0.3% of the population. After adjusting for demographic differences, I estimate10 that TSMC employees have 2.8x more children than the national average, giving a TFR of around 2.45 children per woman. This is especially noteworthy since every statistical indicator predicts lower-than-average fertility. Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average...

What's TSMC?

Probably one of the most important companies youve never heard of.

They make all the most sophisticated semiconductors that run the world around you.

Benpointer

Foxy said:

It's a sobering figure in the header, the Tories needing to recruit a million voters just to stand still, and a further million in the parliament after that.

It really is hard to identify anything that they offer to people of working age, and it isn't just economics. The youngest boomers are now 60, and culturally they seem anathema To Gen X, Millenials and Gen Z.

It seems that rather like taste in clothes and music that taste in politics now is part of people's persona for life. Politics is now a cohort effect rather than an age effect.

Maybe we really are seeing the slow death of the Conservative Party? When the younger generations become disillusioned with Labour they are more likely to turn to the Greens, LDs or Reform than the Tories (imo).

Foxy

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

Interesting theory but I think it falls on "Women also tend to want to marry up." Dare I suggest you might be subconsciously stereotyping a bit there?

In a world of marked gender inequality that may have been the case, and may have been a sensible strategy but these days, where's the evidence?

Indeed the converse for my boys. It seems that treating intelligent young women with courtesy and respect works wonders in the relationship market.

eek

Casino_Royale said:

Wokies are histrionic, blind, dumb and thick - even when presented with a nuanced argument.

We've clearly established that on the last thread.

Good. Glad we got that straight.

Nope I think the only thing we established is that your viewpoint differs from others and is incredibly set..

BartholomewRoberts

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Malmesbury

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, that's remarkable, but doesn't the end actually agree with me?

Namely, "Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average..."

We see in Korea how horrendous expectations for both men and women to work extremely hard can be for child-raising (this is exacerbated by very high living costs too). It'd be intriguing to know just why Taiwan bucks that trend.

Mr. S, it's fascinating to consider whether such a ratio would see men empowered or oppressed. An ugly man in that scenario would probably just be a labour slave. Ages ago, I tried to work out how a medieval-ish society with a huge number of women to men would work. My conclusion was it would be ****ed, because any disease or war would dramatically shaft the demographics. Men are, in that sense, far more expendable.

Read up on Paraguay after 1870.

Some say that 80% of the male population over 15 were dead. The Catholic Church took the view that polygamy should be ignored.

bondegezou

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

Odd comments to make when FPTP has just delivered a massive majority to Labour, who's entire election campaign was based around promising as little as possible.

Benpointer

Have we covered this?

Harris is home and dry for the nomination.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/23/kamala-harris-says-she-is-looking-forward-to-accepting-democratic-nomination-as-she-secures-support-of-enough-delegates-live

Stuartinromford

Alanbrooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne took some positive steps to boost aspiration and home ownership which was cratering under Blair and Brown.

Price/income ratios under them stabilised and started to marginally fall again, despite the low interest rates, from the peaks under Blair and Brown and home ownership rates started to rise again.

The problem is that was too little. Under Boris the party had some good ideas with planning reforms but the rebellion by May et al killed that stone dead and then Sunak made things even worse.

They knew what the problem was, but didn't fix it.

Osborne dicked about with over complex schemes to manage the housing market.

He ducked the issues that the country needed. Build substantially more houses, invest in the infrastructure to go with them and get industry moving.

Thing is, he did that for (what looked like) smart political reasons. Oldies are the ones who vote, so superserving them (protect pensions and healthcare, even as everything else was cut) was a winning move.

See also attitudes to planning (older homeowners don't want new stuff built), investment (better to spend the money on us now), social issues (the boomer revolution was great, everything since is an abomination), and Europe.

Unfortunately, some of those stances are things that people aren't growing into as they age, and others are just bad governance.

eek

Alanbrooke said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

The Taiwan article I posted in the last thread suggests a different paradigm.

https://alethios.substack.com/p/unexplored-unsaid
...Curiously, TSMC stands apart here. Their Taiwanese workforce accounts for a staggering 1.8% of births in Taiwan (and growing quickly, up from 1.4% in 2019), despite being just 0.3% of the population. After adjusting for demographic differences, I estimate10 that TSMC employees have 2.8x more children than the national average, giving a TFR of around 2.45 children per woman. This is especially noteworthy since every statistical indicator predicts lower-than-average fertility. Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average...

What's TSMC?

Probably one of the most important companies youve never heard of.

They make all the most sophisticated semiconductors that run the world around you.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company - they make latest generation semiconductors for literally everyone and are about 3-10 years ahead of the opposition..

Benpointer

Alanbrooke said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

The Taiwan article I posted in the last thread suggests a different paradigm.

https://alethios.substack.com/p/unexplored-unsaid
...Curiously, TSMC stands apart here. Their Taiwanese workforce accounts for a staggering 1.8% of births in Taiwan (and growing quickly, up from 1.4% in 2019), despite being just 0.3% of the population. After adjusting for demographic differences, I estimate10 that TSMC employees have 2.8x more children than the national average, giving a TFR of around 2.45 children per woman. This is especially noteworthy since every statistical indicator predicts lower-than-average fertility. Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average...

What's TSMC?

Probably one of the most important companies youve never heard of.

They make all the most sophisticated semiconductors that run the world around you.

Thanks

MattW

Good day everyone.

PB men theorising about women episode 30675 .

Alanbrooke

Foxy said:

It's a sobering figure in the header, the Tories needing to recruit a million voters just to stand still, and a further million in the parliament after that.

It really is hard to identify anything that they offer to people of working age, and it isn't just economics. The youngest boomers are now 60, and culturally they seem anathema To Gen X, Millenials and Gen Z.

It seems that rather like taste in clothes and music that taste in politics now is part of people's persona for life. Politics is now a cohort effect rather than an age effect.

I think thats just too PBish. Most people dont think about politics and only really do so near an election. There are few hard and fast positions except for the activists. Most people have politics as background noise as they get on with their lives. The age issues are imo over egged, you would think parents and their kids didnt speak. But I have a regular dialogue with my three and we often come to a position on which we all agree.

SMukesh

People don`t stop growing older...

Benpointer

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

Interesting theory but I think it falls on "Women also tend to want to marry up." Dare I suggest you might be subconsciously stereotyping a bit there?

In a world of marked gender inequality that may have been the case, and may have been a sensible strategy but these days, where's the evidence?

Indeed the converse for my boys. It seems that treating intelligent young women with courtesy and respect works wonders in the relationship market.

Who'da thunk it, eh?

Taz

TheScreamingEagles said:

The shade here.

Joey Barton has been charged with making ‘malicious communications’ towards ex-England star Eni Aluko

Barton has repeatedly criticised Aluko, who has 102 caps for England

Meanwhile, he once played 12 minutes for the Three Lions

https://x.com/MetroUK/status/1815369412465025116

To be expected from the Metro.

He is criticising her punditry not her ability as a womens soccer player.

It seems the tweet that he has been charged with is one that targetted Aluko and another female pundit and likened them to Fred and Rose West.

Unpleasant, for sure. Not sure it merits a charge.

His comments about Jeremy Vine were terrible and he deserved his output

Tweedledee

Benpointer said:

Have we covered this?

Harris is home and dry for the nomination.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/23/kamala-harris-says-she-is-looking-forward-to-accepting-democratic-nomination-as-she-secures-support-of-enough-delegates-live

And shortening for pres. Can't decide to take 125 now or hang on in hope of 700 (huge sums in terms of my betting)

Big_G_NorthWales

Good morning

The thread is quite relevant to me personally as with my health issues I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote in GE29

However, I think it is fair to say the change to renters, rather than home owners, is laying the foundation for very difficult problems as these renters retire with rent still to pay unlike most retiring mortgage free home owners

I do not know the solution and even if the conservative party of the next GE will be unrecognisable to many of us, there will be a party of the centre right in some form or other

Sandpit

Tweedledee said:

Benpointer said:

Have we covered this?

Harris is home and dry for the nomination.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/23/kamala-harris-says-she-is-looking-forward-to-accepting-democratic-nomination-as-she-secures-support-of-enough-delegates-live

And shortening for pres. Can't decide to take 125 now or hang on in hope of 700 (huge sums in terms of my betting)

Cash out your original stake, or perhaps a small profit, and let the rest run if you still think she will win.

nico679

Either Mark Kelly from Arizona or Andy Beshear from Kentucky would seem the best VP picks for Harris .

Kelly’s senate seat would be filled a by a fellow Democrat until the next mid terms .

AnthonyT

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/violence-against-women-and-girls-a-national-emergency-68x8pw7dr

MattW said:

Good day everyone.

PB men theorising about women episode 30675 .

And without any actual women present.

DecrepiterJohnL

Levelling up.

Brexit was won not by Bill Cash arguing for sovereignty or John Redwood's Singapore-on-Thames. Brexit was won by a supercharged NOTA vote from habitual non-voters in left-behind communities. Brexit was a vote for levelling up.

Then Boris sacked Dominic Cummings, and Rishi, first as Chancellor, then as Prime Minister, spent the money elsewhere.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

Do they, always ?
You were complaining before the election that Labour hadn't promised anything.

TheScreamingEagles

Sir Andy Murray to retire after the Olympics.

His career was never the same after he endorsed Scottish nationalism.

Alanbrooke

Stuartinromford said:

Alanbrooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

The Tories stopped being the party of aspiration when they chose Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne took some positive steps to boost aspiration and home ownership which was cratering under Blair and Brown.

Price/income ratios under them stabilised and started to marginally fall again, despite the low interest rates, from the peaks under Blair and Brown and home ownership rates started to rise again.

The problem is that was too little. Under Boris the party had some good ideas with planning reforms but the rebellion by May et al killed that stone dead and then Sunak made things even worse.

They knew what the problem was, but didn't fix it.

Osborne dicked about with over complex schemes to manage the housing market.

He ducked the issues that the country needed. Build substantially more houses, invest in the infrastructure to go with them and get industry moving.

Thing is, he did that for (what looked like) smart political reasons. Oldies are the ones who vote, so superserving them (protect pensions and healthcare, even as everything else was cut) was a winning move.

See also attitudes to planning (older homeowners don't want new stuff built), investment (better to spend the money on us now), social issues (the boomer revolution was great, everything since is an abomination), and Europe.

Unfortunately, some of those stances are things that people aren't growing into as they age, and others are just bad governance.

Osborne didnt have a monopoly on shit decisions he simply carried on the policies of Blair and Brown. And I would also say that the political nostrum that Osborne had policies to favour oldies is also suspect. He gave with one hand and took with the other. I bailed my kids out on extortionate uni fees so that they did not start life with a mountain of debt and when it comes to housing its been bank of mum and dad that has been getting them on the housing ladder. Needless to say I stopped voting Conservative in 2011 as they offer nothing.

Taz

Great news for cricket lovers. The Hundred is back.

eek

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

The thread is quite relevant to me personally as with my health issues I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote in GE29

However, I think it is fair to say the change to renters, rather than home owners, is laying the foundation for very difficult problems as these renters retire with rent still to pay unlike most retiring mortgage free home owners

I do not know the solution and even if the conservative party of the next GE will be unrecognisable to many of us, but there will be a party of the centre right in some form or other

It’s worth emphasising the size of the problem - when you own a house and retire your mortgage is likely paid off so you outgoings relative to when you were previously working will be lower.

That isn’t the case if you are still renting your home. You still need to find the £700-2000 a month to pay the rent. It’s going to be a truly massive problem in 2 decades or so time.

Big_G_NorthWales

SMukesh said:

People don`t stop growing older...

Tell me about it !!!!!!!

Tweedledee

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sir Andy Murray to retire after the Olympics.

His career was never the same after he endorsed Scottish nationalism.

Is he playing? Why? Sleepy Andy doing a Biden

TOPPING

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Levelling up.

Brexit was won not by Bill Cash arguing for sovereignty or John Redwood's Singapore-on-Thames. Brexit was won by a supercharged NOTA vote from habitual non-voters in left-behind communities. Brexit was a vote for levelling up.

Then Boris sacked Dominic Cummings, and Rishi, first as Chancellor, then as Prime Minister, spent the money elsewhere.

Absolutely right. It is/was a travesty that the levelling up agenda, whatever that might have been, was binned. And that was down to Johnson's laziness, lack of focus, inability to put good people in around him and let them do the work.

That said, Covid.

A hell of a lot went out of the window once that hit and we loaded up the helicopters with cash.

No_Offence_Alan

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

This is counter-intuitive. Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers.

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, that's remarkable, but doesn't the end actually agree with me?

Namely, "Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average..."

We see in Korea how horrendous expectations for both men and women to work extremely hard can be for child-raising (this is exacerbated by very high living costs too). It'd be intriguing to know just why Taiwan bucks that trend...

Taiwan doesn't buck that trend. It has a huge demographic problem, almost as bad as S Korea's.

TSMC bucks that trend - with highly educated career women having kids at nearly triple the national average rate.

Stuartinromford

Casino_Royale said:

Wokies are histrionic, blind, dumb and thick - even when presented with a nuanced argument.

We've clearly established that on the last thread.

Good. Glad we got that straight.

Is it just possible that that's a factor in the issue described in the header? Namely that remarkably few young people would even consider voting Conservative?

Alanbrooke

bondegezou said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

Odd comments to make when FPTP has just delivered a massive majority to Labour, who's entire election campaign was based around promising as little as possible.

It did nothing of the sort. A split opposition delivered Labour its majority combined with a Conservative party on a suicide mission.

JosiasJessop

Alanbrooke said:

Benpointer said:

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

The Taiwan article I posted in the last thread suggests a different paradigm.

https://alethios.substack.com/p/unexplored-unsaid
...Curiously, TSMC stands apart here. Their Taiwanese workforce accounts for a staggering 1.8% of births in Taiwan (and growing quickly, up from 1.4% in 2019), despite being just 0.3% of the population. After adjusting for demographic differences, I estimate10 that TSMC employees have 2.8x more children than the national average, giving a TFR of around 2.45 children per woman. This is especially noteworthy since every statistical indicator predicts lower-than-average fertility. Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average...

What's TSMC?

Probably one of the most important companies youve never heard of.

They make all the most sophisticated semiconductors that run the world around you.

And also a fantastic success story. I spent a little time a few years back looking at their foundation and rise, and trying to work out what 'magic' led to their success when others, even in Japan, failed. My conclusion? A lot of it is down to good management, strong innovation, and very strong governmental support. But a lot is also plain luck; especially with their competitors making wrong turns (ref. Intel, Fujitsu et al...)

In short: it would be very hard to replicate their success. And even harder with the business and political culture we suffer from in the UK.

Mexicanpete

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Try this for size.

https://x.com/itvnews/status/1813887551523951008/mediaviewer

Utterly disgusting.

BartholomewRoberts

No_Offence_Alan said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

This is counter-intuitive. Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers.

That's a fair comment.

And both dwarf attacks by bears.

Big_G_NorthWales

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

The thread is quite relevant to me personally as with my health issues I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote in GE29

However, I think it is fair to say the change to renters, rather than home owners, is laying the foundation for very difficult problems as these renters retire with rent still to pay unlike most retiring mortgage free home owners

I do not know the solution and even if the conservative party of the next GE will be unrecognisable to many of us, but there will be a party of the centre right in some form or other

It’s worth emphasising the size of the problem - when you own a house and retire your mortgage is likely paid off so you outgoings relative to when you were previously working will be lower.

That isn’t the case if you are still renting your home. You still need to find the £700-2000 a month to pay the rent. It’s going to be a truly massive problem in 2 decades or so time.

Indeed and of course little inheritance for their families

TOPPING

Plus in news from the 1950s, I hear from PB that women "marry up".

BartholomewRoberts

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Try this for size.

https://x.com/itvnews/status/1813887551523951008/mediaviewer

Utterly disgusting.

Urgh.

Look at all those bears.

eek

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

The thread is quite relevant to me personally as with my health issues I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote in GE29

However, I think it is fair to say the change to renters, rather than home owners, is laying the foundation for very difficult problems as these renters retire with rent still to pay unlike most retiring mortgage free home owners

I do not know the solution and even if the conservative party of the next GE will be unrecognisable to many of us, but there will be a party of the centre right in some form or other

It’s worth emphasising the size of the problem - when you own a house and retire your mortgage is likely paid off so you outgoings relative to when you were previously working will be lower.

That isn’t the case if you are still renting your home. You still need to find the £700-2000 a month to pay the rent. It’s going to be a truly massive problem in 2 decades or so time.

Indeed and of course little inheritance for their families

That isn’t the problem - the question is who is going to be paying that £2000 in rent because I suspect it will very quickly become the state’s problem..

bondegezou

No_Offence_Alan said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

This is counter-intuitive. Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers.

Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers, but also far more women are attacked by strangers than by bears.

Benpointer

Casino_Royale said:

Wokies are histrionic, blind, dumb and thick - even when presented with a nuanced argument.

We've clearly established that on the last thread.

Good. Glad we got that straight.

I see Don_Quixote_Royale has joined the conversation.

Taz

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sir Andy Murray to retire after the Olympics.

His career was never the same after he endorsed Scottish nationalism.

He was universally reviled after he said to Tim Henman, as great banter, he always supported Scotland and whoever was playing England.

Alanbrooke

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

Do they, always ?
You were complaining before the election that Labour hadn't promised anything.

Im referring to future elections.

Labour's say nothing policy will come to bit them in the arse over the next couple of years,

Sandpit

Taz said:

Great news for cricket lovers. The Hundred is back.

Where’s the great news?

TOPPING

But who would win in a fight bear vs shark is the more important question.

bondegezou

Alanbrooke said:

bondegezou said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

Odd comments to make when FPTP has just delivered a massive majority to Labour, who's entire election campaign was based around promising as little as possible.

It did nothing of the sort. A split opposition delivered Labour its majority combined with a Conservative party on a suicide mission.

I’m pretty sure Labour won a massive majority and that we voted under FPTP… although I agree that the electorate is more splintered and that may produce problems for FPTP’s ability to deliver an effective government in the future.

And you haven’t addressed Labour’s strategy of not promising much.

Stuartinromford

Nigelb said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, that's remarkable, but doesn't the end actually agree with me?

Namely, "Employees are overwhelmingly urban, highly educated, irreligious, work long hours, and have a 2:1 skew in gender ratio - all of which would predict lower fertility than the Taiwanese average..."

We see in Korea how horrendous expectations for both men and women to work extremely hard can be for child-raising (this is exacerbated by very high living costs too). It'd be intriguing to know just why Taiwan bucks that trend...

Taiwan doesn't buck that trend. It has a huge demographic problem, almost as bad as S Korea's.

TSMC bucks that trend - with highly educated career women having kids at nearly triple the national average rate.

It would be useful to unpick their secret sauce; if it's culture as well as practicalities, what is it about the culture and how much is for export?

What's pretty clear is that the UK is failing on both.

Big_G_NorthWales

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

The thread is quite relevant to me personally as with my health issues I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote in GE29

However, I think it is fair to say the change to renters, rather than home owners, is laying the foundation for very difficult problems as these renters retire with rent still to pay unlike most retiring mortgage free home owners

I do not know the solution and even if the conservative party of the next GE will be unrecognisable to many of us, but there will be a party of the centre right in some form or other

It’s worth emphasising the size of the problem - when you own a house and retire your mortgage is likely paid off so you outgoings relative to when you were previously working will be lower.

That isn’t the case if you are still renting your home. You still need to find the £700-2000 a month to pay the rent. It’s going to be a truly massive problem in 2 decades or so time.

Indeed and of course little inheritance for their families

That isn’t the problem - the question is who is going to be paying that £2000 in rent because I suspect it will very quickly become the state’s problem..

It is a huge problem that will explode into the economy in the next few years and is almost certainty a worry to many thinking of retirement even now

Benpointer

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

The thread is quite relevant to me personally as with my health issues I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote in GE29

However, I think it is fair to say the change to renters, rather than home owners, is laying the foundation for very difficult problems as these renters retire with rent still to pay unlike most retiring mortgage free home owners

I do not know the solution and even if the conservative party of the next GE will be unrecognisable to many of us, but there will be a party of the centre right in some form or other

It’s worth emphasising the size of the problem - when you own a house and retire your mortgage is likely paid off so you outgoings relative to when you were previously working will be lower.

That isn’t the case if you are still renting your home. You still need to find the £700-2000 a month to pay the rent. It’s going to be a truly massive problem in 2 decades or so time.

And if you only have a state pension, the rest of us will be paying that rent for you in housing benefit.

AnthonyT

TOPPING said:

Plus in news from the 1950s, I hear from PB that women "marry up".

More like the 1850's.

Big_G_NorthWales

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Try this for size.

https://x.com/itvnews/status/1813887551523951008/mediaviewer

Utterly disgusting.

Just horrible and unacceptable

Morris_Dancer

https://ifstudies.org/blog/better-educated-women-still-prefer-higher-earning-husbands

"Did it surprise you at all that despite women having more education and opportunity than ever before, most still prefer to marry men with higher incomes?

Yue Qian: No, I was not really surprised because prior research has found a stalling of progress toward gender equality since the 1990s, suggesting that the norm against marriages in which women have higher status than their husbands may also have changed little in recent decades. My study resonated with this line of research and showed that men and women continued to form marriages in which the wife's socioeconomic status did not exceed that of the husband."

Also:

"Do you believe that a husband’s income will continue to play a considerable role in marriage patterns in the future?

Yue Qian: My study did not discredit the importance of education in shaping marriage patterns, but it advanced prior research toward a more comprehensive understanding of mate selection by taking income into consideration. Indeed, income may have become increasingly important in the selection of marriage partners in recent decades. As individuals marry at later ages, and often after they have attained stable employment, income, and even wealth, they may increasingly use income, as opposed to education level, as the main marker of a potential spouse’s economic prospects. As long as gender pay gaps continue to favor men, the role of the remarkable advances in women’s educational attainment in redefining gender role expectations in American families may be more limited than assumed."

Study is 8 years old, mind.

Edited extra bit: also, growing income equality (married couples, US), from 2023: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/

Edited 2: So, it seems I was either wrong or becoming wrong.

bondegezou

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

Do they, always ?
You were complaining before the election that Labour hadn't promised anything.

Im referring to future elections.

Labour's say nothing policy will come to bit them in the arse over the next couple of years,

So it’s a problem when politicians over promise, and a say-nothing approach “will come to bit[e] them in the arse”. So, what exactly are politicians meant to say?

Sandpit

bondegezou said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

This is counter-intuitive. Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers.

Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers, but also far more women are attacked by strangers than by bears.

How many women interact regularly with bears, vs how many regularly interact with strange men?

FWIW, a grizzly bear or a polar bear sees you as lunch, and you’d better have your gun handy. A brown bear, other than a sow protecting cubs, is usually curious but will ignore you if you stay calm and carry on what you’re doing. But still have the gun handy.

MattW

My photo of the Day.

Jumping the Electric Shark.

What does Chump do when the battery is *on* the shark, and will one of his pet snakes save him?

Being a little highflown, I think the important questions are:

1 - Can the Republican party take the poison out of its soul?
I think we need a Republican flip as great as the Democrat flip in the 20C.
2 - Assuming Harris wins POTUS, can the constitutional system be reformed to recover the USA as a democratic society?

If the answers to either one is NO, then Houston they have a problem, as so do we by extension since the UK is most in bed with them of perhaps almost any European country.

Mexicanpete

...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Try this for size.

https://x.com/itvnews/status/1813887551523951008/mediaviewer

Utterly disgusting.

Just horrible and unacceptable

Careful you don't get labelled as "woke" for finding such behaviour unacceptable.

kle4

nico679 said:

Either Mark Kelly from Arizona or Andy Beshear from Kentucky would seem the best VP picks for Harris .

Kelly’s senate seat would be filled a by a fellow Democrat until the next mid terms .

Isn't there a risk they'd lose Kentucky if they go with Beshear? But if he's term limited then switching him into the VP role is worth it?

Ratters

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

Interesting theory but I think it falls on "Women also tend to want to marry up." Dare I suggest you might be subconsciously stereotyping a bit there?

In a world of marked gender inequality that may have been the case, and may have been a sensible strategy but these days, where's the evidence?

Indeed the converse for my boys. It seems that treating intelligent young women with courtesy and respect works wonders in the relationship market.

It's a simple formula:

- Treat women with respect and people rather than objects to be won.
- Look after yourself and some semblance of being healthy.
- Acceptance and resilience in the face of failure.

There's no need for the sort of misogynistic game playing (or worse) of Tate.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, excitingly, I recently saw a fun video about bears and how they see humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Z_bkdmmlA

kle4

TOPPING said:

But who would win in a fight bear vs shark is the more important question.

Depends on the venue.

Big_G_NorthWales

Mexicanpete said:

...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Try this for size.

https://x.com/itvnews/status/1813887551523951008/mediaviewer

Utterly disgusting.

Just horrible and unacceptable

Careful you don't get labelled as "woke" for finding such behaviour unacceptable.

I am happy to be called woke for calling out anything that is misogynistic, demeaning, or threatening to any woman

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Ratters, "Acceptance and resilience in the face of failure" is excellent advice for many things.

eek

Benpointer said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

The thread is quite relevant to me personally as with my health issues I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote in GE29

However, I think it is fair to say the change to renters, rather than home owners, is laying the foundation for very difficult problems as these renters retire with rent still to pay unlike most retiring mortgage free home owners

I do not know the solution and even if the conservative party of the next GE will be unrecognisable to many of us, but there will be a party of the centre right in some form or other

It’s worth emphasising the size of the problem - when you own a house and retire your mortgage is likely paid off so you outgoings relative to when you were previously working will be lower.

That isn’t the case if you are still renting your home. You still need to find the £700-2000 a month to pay the rent. It’s going to be a truly massive problem in 2 decades or so time.

And if you only have a state pension, the rest of us will be paying that rent for you in housing benefit.

Zero point saving for a private pension if it’s just going to disappear in rent.

House first, pension second is the sane financial approach and unless we find a way that ensures people have bought a house the pension fund is money that will just disappear.

And as I write this best buy another rental property or 3…

bondegezou

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

This is counter-intuitive. Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers.

Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers, but also far more women are attacked by strangers than by bears.

How many women interact regularly with bears, vs how many regularly interact with strange men?

FWIW, a grizzly bear or a polar bear sees you as lunch, and you’d better have your gun handy. A brown bear, other than a sow protecting cubs, is usually curious but will ignore you if you stay calm and carry on what you’re doing. But still have the gun handy.

Sun bears, spectacled bears and pandas are relatively safe too, should we want to cover all the ursid species.

BartholomewRoberts

Sandpit said:

bondegezou said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

This is counter-intuitive. Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers.

Far more women are attacked by men they know than by strangers, but also far more women are attacked by strangers than by bears.

How many women interact regularly with bears, vs how many regularly interact with strange men?

FWIW, a grizzly bear or a polar bear sees you as lunch, and you’d better have your gun handy. A brown bear, other than a sow protecting cubs, is usually curious but will ignore you if you stay calm and carry on what you’re doing. But still have the gun handy.

There's very few polar bears in forests though, so the brown bear is more relevant and yes it will tend to leave you alone. I wouldn't want to be with a grizzly.

Brown bears are very real and ever-present danger where my in-laws live, they're in the Rockies and bears will wander into town.

I believe the facts are still more women attacked by men than bears there too.

kle4

Ratters said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Sorry for going off-topic (although slightly related to the last thread discussion), but isn't a major problem simply that equality doesn't work well for romantic matches, hence rising singleness?

What I mean by this is that women have equality in the workplace. That's a good thing. Women also tend to want to marry up. The economic circumstances of a man matters way more to a woman than the economic circumstances of a woman do to a man.

But that's a problem because equality means roughly the same earning potential so lines drawn according to economic circumstance will average out to being horizontal between men and women. Hence, middle and lower income chaps find things very difficult, because the desire line of marrying up just cuts out a ton of men.

This tallies with what's been remarked upon here before, that overall frisky time is the same as ever, but guys at the top are having tons whereas men at the bottom are getting none. But on a societal level that's no way to reach a standard of stable families and most people being happily married with kids.

Anyway, that's some sleepy waffling psychological rambling, but it might have something to it.

Interesting theory but I think it falls on "Women also tend to want to marry up." Dare I suggest you might be subconsciously stereotyping a bit there?

In a world of marked gender inequality that may have been the case, and may have been a sensible strategy but these days, where's the evidence?

Indeed the converse for my boys. It seems that treating intelligent young women with courtesy and respect works wonders in the relationship market.

It's a simple formula:

- Treat women with respect and people rather than objects to be won.
- Look after yourself and some semblance of being healthy.
- Acceptance and resilience in the face of failure.

There's no need for the sort of misogynistic game playing (or worse) of Tate.

That is true, but our culture is currently persuading far too many that they do. I don't think that's solely the case due to the bad men saying the bad things, you always get push and pull factors, and something is pushing people towards seeing that stuff as persuasive.

That makes combating it a tad more complicated than us merely ridiculing the Tates of the world, though that should also be done.

Nigelb

JD Vance manages both a stutter and a weird laugh, and Jeb Bush style energy.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1815455304823575001

boulay

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Sorry but the bit in bold is really quite a stupid comment when arguing that women feel safer with bears than a strange man.

Of course fewer women are attacked by bears - very, very few women come into contact with bears in their lifetime yet alone on a daily basis. If women came into contact with men as infrequently as they come into contact with a bear then violence against women by men might have similar or lower levels.

What proportion of random men attack random women in relation to the number of encounters compared to the number of bear attacks on random women.

Also bears are not “not attacking” women because bears are kinder to women - they don’t discriminate because you are a woman - if you “threaten” their cubs you are toast regardless of what you identify as.

another_richard

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Levelling up.

Brexit was won not by Bill Cash arguing for sovereignty or John Redwood's Singapore-on-Thames. Brexit was won by a supercharged NOTA vote from habitual non-voters in left-behind communities. Brexit was a vote for levelling up.

Then Boris sacked Dominic Cummings, and Rishi, first as Chancellor, then as Prime Minister, spent the money elsewhere.

Absolutely right. It is/was a travesty that the levelling up agenda, whatever that might have been, was binned. And that was down to Johnson's laziness, lack of focus, inability to put good people in around him and let them do the work.

That said, Covid.

A hell of a lot went out of the window once that hit and we loaded up the helicopters with cash.

whatever that might have been

The key words.

Anyone lamenting a supposed lack of 'levelling up' needs to first define what hey mean by 'levelling up'.

If it was full employment, high pay for those with in demand skillsets and affordable housing in an improved environment then that's been achieved.

If it was turning northern England into London and the waitrose belt then it hasn't but how many people in northern England actually want that unaffordability, inequality and congestion ?

If it was making people with low quality skillsets into millionaires this time next year then that was never going to be possible.

Alanbrooke

bondegezou said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What do the Tories do to attract the young?

The obvious is to go back to conservatism- sound finances, work and reward, home ownership. The problem is that all of these things are against what their owners want (as they profit from the reverse) and against what their remaining 7 voters have been gaslit to want.

We will instead see them flirting with whipping the flames of anger to pick up the angry young man vote because no girl wants to shag their abusive if ignorant ass.

Thats a bit like saying you should stick with sandals and muesli.

Currently all the political parties are struggling to engage with the electorate. It might be that the electorate is now too is now too splintered for FPTP to be able to deliver an effective government or it may be that the politicians need to get their act together and start delivering what they promised. Problem is of course they always over promise to get elected.

Do they, always ?
You were complaining before the election that Labour hadn't promised anything.

Im referring to future elections.

Labour's say nothing policy will come to bit them in the arse over the next couple of years,

So it’s a problem when politicians over promise, and a say-nothing approach “will come to bit[e] them in the arse”. So, what exactly are politicians meant to say?

My personal view is that policticians should recognise they cant do half the things they say they can. The so called third way doesnt work. It would be better to roll back what the state seeks to deliver to a core of essentials and do them well. And while we're at it it would be best to decentralise large amounts of government to the local level. Citizens are best left to manage their own lives.

Our politicians have allowed themselves to think they can solve every problem - they cant. They should be looking at creating the conditions for citizens to succeed rather than pretending they can deliver success for all.

BartholomewRoberts

boulay said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Online influencers like Andrew Tate are radicalising boys into extreme misogyny in a way that is "quite terrifying", police are warning."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vw1x83po

I think Wokery, turbocharged by social media, is driving misogyny amongst boys and misandry amongst girls. Just look at that stupid poll on young women preferring to be with a bear than a man in a forest upthread.

Identity politics must end.

Its not remotely stupid that women feel safer with a bear than a strange man. Maybe you should stop moaning about identity politics and actually listen women and their concerns instead.

I heard this from my wife long before I heard it on this site, and she said bear too. The context given was that it was a stranger not a man you know in case that makes a difference to you.

A bear is likely to leave you alone. Far fewer women are attacked by bears than men. Instead of moaning about identity politics, how about we deal with the predators that make so many women feel unsafe - and those predators are not bears!

Sorry but the bit in bold is really quite a stupid comment when arguing that women feel safer with bears than a strange man.

Of course fewer women are attacked by bears - very, very few women come into contact with bears in their lifetime yet alone on a daily basis. If women came into contact with men as infrequently as they come into contact with a bear then violence against women by men might have similar or lower levels.

What proportion of random men attack random women in relation to the number of encounters compared to the number of bear attacks on random women.

Also bears are not “not attacking” women because bears are kinder to women - they don’t discriminate because you are a woman - if you “threaten” their cubs you are toast regardless of what you identify as.

Actually in Canada and America there are many women in the same forest as a bear every single day.

They don't encounter them much though because bears will leave people alone and vice-versa.

Too many men do not want to leave women alone.

Taz

Merging council pensions schemes could unlock a pot of cash to invest in infrastructure/give to middlemen and administrators.

It’s going to happen, isn’t it. Pensions seen by both parties as pots of cash to use. The govt are so good at spending money and investing. Nothing could go wrong.

https://www.cityam.com/merge-council-pension-schemes-to-unlock-40bn-investment-bonanza-reeves-told/

Nigelb

.

Sandpit said:

Tweedledee said:

Benpointer said:

Have we covered this?

Harris is home and dry for the nomination.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/23/kamala-harris-says-she-is-looking-forward-to-accepting-democratic-nomination-as-she-secures-support-of-enough-delegates-live

And shortening for pres. Can't decide to take 125 now or hang on in hope of 700 (huge sums in terms of my betting)

Cash out your original stake, or perhaps a small profit, and let the rest run if you still think she will win.

That's decent advice.

My gut feeling, FWIW, is that her odds will shorten over the next week or two.
I actually increased my stake last night.

If it gets anywhere near evens, I'll take some off the table.

Tweedledee

Nigelb said:

JD Vance manages both a stutter and a weird laugh, and Jeb Bush style energy.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1815455304823575001

Perhaps we just deem all Usonians demented.