I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Would anybody be surprised if the UK actually had another 2, 3, maybe 5 million people living here than officially believed?
I spoke to an association of local authorities once and they were adamant that that was the case. Some analyses of sewer usage and food buying indicate that this may be the case, but other explanations (disposal of food past sell-by date) are available. I don't know how you would resolve this
For various reasons I've recently been all over bits of West London beyond my usual haunts. It is mind blowing to see just how many properties that would have once had a single family in them 20-30 years ago, just a normal semi or terraced house, that are now clearly split into flats. You can tell this from things like entrances, bins, satellite dishes, the number of cars parked on what used to be the front garden. Then there's all the repurposed commercial property that has been turned into flats. There is so much of that, almost all of it looks terrible.
Looking at some of these properties I'm not convinced that all this stuff is on the up and up, and anecdotally dodgy HMOs seem to be very common and a persitent issue for local government. You really do have to wonder how many people actually live in London today?
There's also the question of how many people live in garden sheds near Heathrow Airport.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
They can rent a flat or even a room even if they can't yet afford to buy.
100 years most parents rented their entire lives
Yeah, I can see some problems with telling youngsters to start bringing up big families in a rented room. Is this really what the party of Maggie has been reduced to? How!!!!
Conservatism is not all about making people earn and own more, it is also about supporting the traditional family.
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
Yes, there will be such voices. And there will be many more voices saying: "For God's sake, no!"
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
I just drafted a reply that I have deleted before posting, on the slim chance it gives the other side ideas they may not have had. But if you think about this properly and calmly and try and put yourself in the logic tree of Putin himself, the risk is higher than you have convinced yourself.
Of course there is a risk. Putin is not a reasonable actor - if so he wouldn't have invaded in the first place, or directed a campaign of mass bombing against civilian targets.
But capitulation to his threats wouldn't eliminate the risk. It would probably encourage him to try again for further gains.
And JJ is correct in thinking there are serious deterrents to the first use of even a small tactical nuclear weapon. The same considerations of how to respond would still apply - and that might include a massive conventional response from NATO.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
They can rent a flat or even a room even if they can't yet afford to buy.
100 years most parents rented their entire lives
Yeah, I can see some problems with telling youngsters to start bringing up big families in a rented room. Is this really what the party of Maggie has been reduced to? How!!!!
Conservatism is not all about making people earn and own more, it is also about supporting the traditional family.
Supporting traditional families is not telling them to procreate and live in a small room with no security. Bizarre.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Though 'The figures also indicate why voters across much of the world have hurled out ruling parties in favour of fresh faces: no major advanced economy has recovered from the cost of living crisis which took hold in the wake of the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to the ILO.
In every case – even the US, which has seen blistering economic growth by the standards of the rest of the world – wages have still not risen enough to overtake the sharp rise in prices suffered since 2021.'
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
The number of asylum applicants in the period was 84,000 - a relatively small fraction of the whole.
Add in asylum and that’s Britain’s 4th biggest city - in population terms - arriving in ONE YEAR
The asylum numbers are already included.
Yebbut... add in the non-migration numbers again and you have Britain's 45th largest town - arriving in ONE DAY
I know Big G and I are trying to avoid this, but how many people die every year?
That is so kind but following a series of recent reviews and scans my haematologist, cardiologist and vascular surgeon have all signed me off [ with occasional blood tests] for a year and whilst I am not as mobile as I was, I am grateful for so much and look forward to a few years ahead
My GP agrees that I'm OK from the neck up, although I need annual reviews, including, like you, blood tests. However I do note that my spelling has deteriorated a little lately. I've booked a speaking engagement for late February, though and I'm beginning to wonder about travelling somewhere in the summer!
I think you are amazing with all your medical issues and how you have and are adapting
My wife and I have also had to change, and to be honest have lost the travel bug after years of international travel, and feel safest at and near our home and family
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
Yes. We see this with Musk ad his ilk. America can hold more people. But (the wrong sort of) immigrants are bad. Therefore we need existing women to have more kids. And we shall do this by restricting abortions and access to contraceptives.
Figures about annual house building completions and about growth in GDP etc have no real meaning unless related to the net migration figures. For example if we are increasing by 700,000 people per annum and building 300,000 homes, we are not helping the problem, we are making the housing problem worse.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
You can't just do it all with 2, you also need some of 1 in terms of supporting those women who want to be stay at home mothers and the traditional family.
Otherwise the culture still pushes women having careers first and libertarian lifestyle choices above motherhood
Thank you for that. I read it via the archive link https://archive.is/0kvzw (not everybody has a Times scrip!) and one quote jumped out
"Other opponents of this bill worry about coercion; about people who don’t want to die being bullied into it. That too is an easy fox to shoot. Very few people secretly want to murder their spouses or parents,"
Well yes, but those that do will be a problem and you can bet your bottom dollar that at least one will happen in the first year and make the news. You have to take edge cases and abuse into account, you can't just wave your hand at legislation and say "she'll be apples".
I think coercion would work the other way.
If ever I decide to take the assisted dying route, my daughters would try their damnest to coerce their father out of it.
I think this is probably where most (?) people would be.
It's something I've considered as a hypothetical - would I want my children to go through what I did with my father ? While I wouldn't for a moment want to change that - he was someone determined to hang on to life (even in dementia) - it's not something I would choose (assuming I had the capacity to do so) in his position. But my children would probably try to talk me out of it, too.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
Yes. We see this with Musk ad his ilk. America can hold more people. But (the wrong sort of) immigrants are bad. Therefore we need existing women to have more kids. And we shall do this by restricting abortions and access to contraceptives.
A distinctly anti-woman agenda.
Well the Vatican and evangelical Christians and many conservative Muslims and Orthodox Jews will like it too
Figures about annual house building completions and about growth in GDP etc have no real meaning unless related to the net migration figures. For example if we are increasing by 700,000 people per annum and building 300,000 homes, we are not helping the problem, we are making the housing problem worse.
I'd have thought those numbers would improve the situation as I think average occupancy is > 2.34 per dwelling ?
AI Overview Learn more The average number of people per household in the UK was 2.36 in 2022. However, the average household size varies by region, with London having an average of 2.57 people per household, and the South East having an average of 2.43 people per household. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) recommends using a national average of 2.4 people per dwelling when using national data. However, occupancy rates vary by the size of the dwelling, so it's important to use locally relevant data when it's available. The occupancy rating for a household is calculated by comparing the number of bedrooms the household requires to the number of bedrooms it has. A household with more bedrooms than required is considered under-occupied, while a household with fewer bedrooms than required is considered overcrowded. In 2021, 68.8% of households in England and 76.3% of households in Wales were under-occupied.
Not by much, mind so the issue pretty much is as was given those figures.
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
It was Rishi tightening vias rules that saw immigration fall today and even Boris ended EU free movement to the UK
The end of free movement increased immigration. Free movement within the EU allowed a flexibility in the labour market, with people coming and going. Without free movement, people coming on work visas (which is the vast majority of long-term immigration) are much more incentivised to find ways to stay, because there's no assurance they'll be able to come back if they go.
"Free movement" sounds scary, but it's actually better for keeping immigration lower. Boris and Rishi oversaw high numbers of work visas, which was the main driver of long-term immigration (not students, not asylum seekers).
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
The number of asylum applicants in the period was 84,000 - a relatively small fraction of the whole.
Add in asylum and that’s Britain’s 4th biggest city - in population terms - arriving in ONE YEAR
The asylum numbers are already included.
Yebbut... add in the non-migration numbers again and you have Britain's 45th largest town - arriving in ONE DAY
I know Big G and I are trying to avoid this, but how many people die every year?
That is so kind but following a series of recent reviews and scans my haematologist, cardiologist and vascular surgeon have all signed me off [ with occasional blood tests] for a year and whilst I am not as mobile as I was, I am grateful for so much and look forward to a few years ahead
My GP agrees that I'm OK from the neck up, although I need annual reviews, including, like you, blood tests. However I do note that my spelling has deteriorated a little lately. I've booked a speaking engagement for late February, though and I'm beginning to wonder about travelling somewhere in the summer!
I think you are amazing with all your medical issues and how you have and are adapting
My wife and I have also had to change, and to be honest have lost the travel bug after years of international travel, and feel safest at and near our home and family
Thank you. I think it's called 'Not giving up'!
I'd like to go to SW Wales to do some family history research.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
They can rent a flat or even a room even if they can't yet afford to buy.
100 years most parents rented their entire lives
Yeah, I can see some problems with telling youngsters to start bringing up big families in a rented room. Is this really what the party of Maggie has been reduced to? How!!!!
Conservatism is not all about making people earn and own more, it is also about supporting the traditional family.
There's precious little evidence of such support. Unless you mean supporting a return to a patriarchal society.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
You've got this bee in your bonnet about 'uber liberal professional women', and speak of them as though they are evil.
No. They are women. They do not want to be forced to have kids they do not want.
If people like you want women to have more kids, I'd suggest several broad approaches:
*) Men have to do *much* more to support kids and their wives. *) Treat women, and their personal choices, with respect. *) Spend a fuckload more supporting kids.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
Yes. We see this with Musk ad his ilk. America can hold more people. But (the wrong sort of) immigrants are bad. Therefore we need existing women to have more kids. And we shall do this by restricting abortions and access to contraceptives.
A distinctly anti-woman agenda.
Well the Vatican and evangelical Christians and many conservative Muslims and Orthodox Jews will like it too
Too many Orthodox Jews will want to emigrate to Israel. There are more than enough people 'arguing' over land rights in Israel/Palestine already.
Surprised so little comment here on the escalating tension with Russia.
Mass drone activity over UK (USAF) nuclear bases still ongoing in East Anglia last night I see. Is that 8 consecutive nights now? Apaches and Ospreys have been in the air, several dozen special forces deployed on the ground. And reportedly the activity has also spread to Brize Norton. USAF spokespeople are being grilled daily about this, UK MOD is saying very little.
Meanwhile the Yi Peng 3 is still moored off the coast of Sweden while they figure out negotiations with China to board it and presumably arrest the Russian crew for sabotage.
Last night Kalingrad was completely encircled by US jets.
Bob Woodward reports that in autumn 2022, the cia’s risk assessment of imminent nuclear exchange was 50% (based upon “exquisite” intelligence), before receding after the Russian army escaped to the left bank of the river in Kherson. One wonders what their risk assessment is right now.
The risk has reduced, IMV. Putin has self fallacious red line after red line, and when those lines have been crossed, has done very little in response. He has had a couple of years to consider that defeat is possible, if not probable, and the adults in the room will have made it very clear to him what the consequences of the use of nukes will be - both for himself and Russia.
The biggest risk of his using nukes was in late 2022, when his gambit started failing.
I conclude exactly the opposite and think you are being pretty complacent. Some major red lines have now been crossed that we would all have considered unthinkable just a few short years ago. Russian sovereign territory has been invaded using a plethora of western tanks and armoured vehicles. And medium range missiles are targeting Russia, that so I gather require active western support to operate.
It would be reasonable to conclude that Russia’s deterrence to external attack has failed. And it’s not far fetched to think there are voices in Moscow right now making the case that the only way to restore deterrence is via a demonstrative nuclear detonation. After the IMBM launch didn’t do the job.
Yes, there will be such voices. And there will be many more voices saying: "For God's sake, no!"
There is no logic in Russia using a tactical or strategic nuke. It gives no battlefield advantage, will lose them friends abroad, and damn them in the history that Putin holds so dear. Using nukes is all lose for Russia, no win.
Because of this, my view is that usage was more likely if Putin suffered a large shock, as he did back in mid-2022. He and his team have had a couple of years to get used to the idea of defeat, and for the adults to tell them what use of a nuke would mean.
I just drafted a reply that I have deleted before posting, on the slim chance it gives the other side ideas they may not have had. But if you think about this properly and calmly and try and put yourself in the logic tree of Putin himself, the risk is higher than you have convinced yourself.
I am not 'convinced'; and I'm amused by your assumption that I am not thinking about this calmly or 'properly' (whatever the heck that means...)
I'd like to see your view on Putin's 'logic tree'; I doubt you'll give him ideas.
Well you’re saying things like “self fallacious red lines”, in the context of western battle tanks and missiles thundering through the Russian countryside. So yes, I think you're looking at this with emotion rather than calmly, and considering how far the Overton window has shifted in 2-3 years.
Deterrence is “cheaper” the earlier you do it, as we have learnt to our painful cost. The problem is that Putin has also left it very late, and he’s struggling to restore the integrity of Russian sovereign territory through conventional means. It therefore follows he might be persuaded he needs to make an “expensive” intervention to restore credible deterrence.
You aren’t pricing in the risk of a nuclear intervention because like most, I imagine you view escalation to MAD as an almost immutable law. And perhaps this is the correct conclusion. But there’s a non negligible chance that Putin will be persuaded otherwise. That was the view of the CIA this time two years ago and I’m not clear why we should brush aside recent major escalations as being somehow different.
There's also the counterfactual of what might have happened had Biden not been as overly cautious (IMO) as he was. Had he supplied Abrams tanks, F16s and longer range missiles in significant numbers earlier in the conflict, the invasion might have been defeated by now.
Which would have saved both sides tens, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, and many billions of expenditure.
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Net immigration has fallen on the latest figures today precisely as Sunak tightened visa requirements before he left office
I do wish people would stop jumping on @Anabobazina. They have views and should be able to air them. Also, as it happens they were literally responding to a thread header by somebody else!
Funny how people try to moderate only those they don’t agree with
Fair points, well made. Thanks.
(P.S. I am a he not a they!)
Do we all need to start posting our pronouns in our usernames?
Would be handy for weeding out bots/AI
Claude (it/its)
The bit that really gets me about pronoun posting is the insistence on giving the genitive and/or accusative cases alongside the nominative case. They're redundant. You only need the nominative case: he, she or it. The other cases are unambiguously derived from it.
Best, FeersumEnjineeya (it)
Well, I don't know... I'm married, so for me, it's he/hers
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
I was in a taxi driven by a lady on Monday evening.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
Yes. We see this with Musk ad his ilk. America can hold more people. But (the wrong sort of) immigrants are bad. Therefore we need existing women to have more kids. And we shall do this by restricting abortions and access to contraceptives.
A distinctly anti-woman agenda.
Well the Vatican and evangelical Christians and many conservative Muslims and Orthodox Jews will like it too
Too many Orthodox Jews will want to emigrate to Israel. There are more than enough people 'arguing' over land rights in Israel/Palestine already.
Nonetheless Roman Catholics, evangelical Christians and Muslims as well as Orthodox Jews have more children on average than atheists do
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Net immigration has fallen on the latest figures today precisely as Sunak tightened visa requirements before he left office
Embarrassing spin. You campaigned to get the Tories elected on a promise of cutting it to the tens of thousands and now you're trying to claim net migration of 700k as an achievement.
Sweden tightened the rules and now they have net emigration, so it can be done, but clearly not by the Tories.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
To do that they need houses rather than living with their parents til their thirties. To get the houses we need builders....
And even if we start now its not going to produce any new workers for at least 18.75 years.......
They can rent a flat or even a room even if they can't yet afford to buy.
100 years most parents rented their entire lives
Yeah, I can see some problems with telling youngsters to start bringing up big families in a rented room. Is this really what the party of Maggie has been reduced to? How!!!!
Conservatism is not all about making people earn and own more, it is also about supporting the traditional family.
There's precious little evidence of such support. Unless you mean supporting a return to a patriarchal society.
More financial support for stay at home mothers like Meloni providing now would be a start
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
You've got this bee in your bonnet about 'uber liberal professional women', and speak of them as though they are evil.
No. They are women. They do not want to be forced to have kids they do not want.
If people like you want women to have more kids, I'd suggest several broad approaches:
*) Men have to do *much* more to support kids and their wives. *) Treat women, and their personal choices, with respect. *) Spend a fuckload more supporting kids.
And women in turn need to be more willing to settle down earlier and not seek perfection in a husband
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Net immigration has fallen on the latest figures today precisely as Sunak tightened visa requirements before he left office
Embarrassing spin. You campaigned to get the Tories elected on a promise of cutting it to the tens of thousands and now you're trying to claim net migration of 700k as an achievement.
Sweden tightened the rules and now they have net emigration, so it can be done, but clearly not by the Tories.
Sweden has a centre right government propped up by nationalist right Sweden Democrats so next Tory government propped up by Reform might tighten the rules further yes
Would anybody be surprised if the UK actually had another 2, 3, maybe 5 million people living here than officially believed?
I spoke to an association of local authorities once and they were adamant that that was the case. Some analyses of sewer usage and food buying indicate that this may be the case, but other explanations (disposal of food past sell-by date) are available. I don't know how you would resolve this
For various reasons I've recently been all over bits of West London beyond my usual haunts. It is mind blowing to see just how many properties that would have once had a single family in them 20-30 years ago, just a normal semi or terraced house, that are now clearly split into flats. You can tell this from things like entrances, bins, satellite dishes, the number of cars parked on what used to be the front garden. Then there's all the repurposed commercial property that has been turned into flats. There is so much of that, almost all of it looks terrible.
Looking at some of these properties I'm not convinced that all this stuff is on the up and up, and anecdotally dodgy HMOs seem to be very common and a persitent issue for local government. You really do have to wonder how many people actually live in London today?
Conversion of houses into flats mainly took place in the 80s and 90s. When I first came to London in 1998 the vast majority of housing stock had already been converted. There is some reconversion back to houses in some places but councils are wary of this for the obvious reason that it reduces housing stock.
The overall state of repair and presentability of conversions has, I would say, improved markedly since the 90s as areas have gentrified and also as flat owners have bought out shares of freehold.
In my bit of (relatively cheap) suburban East London, there hasn't been much conversion into HMOs in the last 20-30 years. The street I used to live contained a lot of large 4/5 bed houses that had been converted to flats or bedsits at some point prior to 2002, and only a couple more were converted after then. In the same period a couple of others that had been part commercial reverted to being a single residential home.
What I have noticed since moving to a group of streets of very small 2-3 bed Edwardian houses, is that a much greater percentage have families (and often large ones). In my old street there were relatively few families in the houses, they were mostly older people whose families had left home. I also notice that's also true to an extent of the slightly larger interwar semis in the neighbouring streets where I am now.
So it looks to me here that what has been lost is the ability of families to trade up to larger properties as their families grow/get older, as I was lucky enough still to be able to do 25 years ago.
The previous government pursued an open-borders policy that the left of the Democratic Party could only dream of.
But, they lied to their voters that they were doing the opposite.
No wonder Reform polled so well.
Rishi to be fair to him introduced a higher Visa salary requirement and end to migrants bringing over dependents which has seen immigration fall as the figures show today.
Boris did end EU free movement but just expanded immigration from the non EU
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
Nor me – nor a female builder or dustbin(wo)man. Only 1 in 10,000 builders are female: where did the Uber Feminists go?
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
Sure, it's the inflation problem again. A reduced rate of increase when some people are uncomfortable with the number of non-British-born* people here already.
I am I think probably similar to a lot of others in that in principle I am fully supportive of there being a right, but that the safeguards must be balanced, enforced and appropriate. The actual balance is a very tricky one to strike, hence why I think the debate is so controversial and why it is difficult to legislate.
If MPs do back the bill in principle, I would be hugely in favour of something akin to a royal commission (what happened to those?) taking evidence from medical professionals, hospices, charities, campaigners and yes lawyers and judges to try and form a consensus way forwards on the principles and structure (those principles having been endorsed by MPs) and work with government to get a statute before parliament. That to me seems like the greatest chance of getting a “good” law out of this.
It does need careful attention. We don't need to reinvent the wheel though. AD is in place in several countries and in some of them has been for a long time. There's plenty of real world experience and data available. Of course we can't just copy (we have our own specific healthcare environment) but we should be able to take a strong steer from best practice elsewhere.
Another point I'd make is on safeguards. Debate here is angled primarily from one direction, ie we must make them strong enough. No argument there. But we should also test in the other direction. Are there too many safeguards? Is the process too restrictive, too cumbersome? Because there is risk there too, the risk that a bill aiming to alleviate a certain type of suffering fails to impact most of it.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
You've got this bee in your bonnet about 'uber liberal professional women', and speak of them as though they are evil.
No. They are women. They do not want to be forced to have kids they do not want.
If people like you want women to have more kids, I'd suggest several broad approaches:
*) Men have to do *much* more to support kids and their wives. *) Treat women, and their personal choices, with respect. *) Spend a fuckload more supporting kids.
And women in turn need to be more willing to settle down earlier and not seek perfection in a husband
Not being nosy, particularly, but how many children do you have? We had three and now have seven grandchildren, although the latter are not all in UK.
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
And hence why Badenoch has A Problem.
The Tories must not only be seen to be responding on policy but must be believed. That latter bit is ridiculously tough given their track record.
The thing that will keep them in the game is whether Starmer Labour continues to falter, and that they have to hope Farage implodes or that he has a ceiling based on the fact he’s a twerp. But they really face a huge challenge.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
You've got this bee in your bonnet about 'uber liberal professional women', and speak of them as though they are evil.
No. They are women. They do not want to be forced to have kids they do not want.
If people like you want women to have more kids, I'd suggest several broad approaches:
*) Men have to do *much* more to support kids and their wives. *) Treat women, and their personal choices, with respect. *) Spend a fuckload more supporting kids.
And women in turn need to be more willing to settle down earlier and not seek perfection in a husband
I don't think they do seek 'perfection'. I think women are desperate to find men who are not asshats who want them to pump out kid after kid, then leave them for a younger woman.
I'd really like to see people like you attacking such men, rather than women.
My photo quota for today, in the spirit of appropriate What3Words locations.
An anti-wheelchair chicane partly blocking an underpass through a railway embankment at Lansdowne Road, Urmston, at the location ... verifying.fencing.skills .
Yeugh. That's a bit crap. I reckon I might squeeze past on the right-hand side but many wouldn't.
Either side risks a lovely wheel-in-dog-poo encounter.
You should see the one at the other end of that underpass, which has planters *and* a chicane.
They put the planters in (which are bad enough), and then someone did the "but motorcycles" wibble, and they added a modern overlapping chicane contraption - which is not lawful afaics under HWA1980 S137 "Wilful obstruction of a Public Highway". I think that underpass is probably a Public Highway,
I don't get the mentality of installing something that makes life difficult for disabled people at ONE end of an underpass, never mind pissing scarce council resources up the wall by adding more at the OTHER end 25m away, making it even MORE difficult.
At least the one in my posted pic is a 1980s relic.
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Net immigration has fallen on the latest figures today precisely as Sunak tightened visa requirements before he left office
Embarrassing spin. You campaigned to get the Tories elected on a promise of cutting it to the tens of thousands and now you're trying to claim net migration of 700k as an achievement.
Sweden tightened the rules and now they have net emigration, so it can be done, but clearly not by the Tories.
I've come to the conclusion that the Conservatives will never actually deliver what centre right voters want, unless another right wing party can hold their feet to the fire.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
Yes. We see this with Musk ad his ilk. America can hold more people. But (the wrong sort of) immigrants are bad. Therefore we need existing women to have more kids. And we shall do this by restricting abortions and access to contraceptives.
A distinctly anti-woman agenda.
Well the Vatican and evangelical Christians and many conservative Muslims and Orthodox Jews will like it too
They like all sorts of stuff that sane humans wouldn't give the time of day to. We don't need religion making policy. You'll be wanting blasphemy laws next!
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
You can't just do it all with 2, you also need some of 1 in terms of supporting those women who want to be stay at home mothers and the traditional family.
Otherwise the culture still pushes women having careers first and libertarian lifestyle choices above motherhood
What do you mean by the words, "supporting those women who want to be stay at home mothers and the traditional family" and why do you think that is part of category 1 rather than 2?
For example, I would argue that if you address the housing crisis and reduce the cost of housing then you make it easier for a family to provide themselves with decent accommodation and living standards on a single income, enabling one parent to stay at home with children if they wish to do so. That fits into category 2.
This has been an issue for the entire period of Conservative led Government for 14 years, and STARMER HAS NOT FIXED IT IN FOUR MONTHS.
And he GAVE some in the public sector a PAY RISE.
HOW DARE HE !
2008 seems a carefully chosen start point. Expect one based around 2007 when incomes increase a little more. I wonder when they will notice that wages are increasing quite a lot faster than inflation.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
Nor me – nor a female builder or dustbin(wo)man. Only 1 in 10,000 builders are female: where did the Uber Feminists go?
As I think I've commented before, I've seen a few female surveyors recently; including a four-woman surveying team on the new road project. Two doing the surveying, and two directing passers-by around them and the diggers that were moving about.
And I think there's at least one woman builder on the new development; I *think* she's a scaffolder.
Some very good news for people with asthma and COPD. The first new treatment for acute attacks in over 50 years—a monoclonal antibody vs interleukin-5 receptor-α—with efficacy in a randomized trial https://x.com/EricTopol/status/1861925276252307893
It's also a British drug - AZN having bought the US biotech which developed it.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
Nor me – nor a female builder or dustbin(wo)man. Only 1 in 10,000 builders are female: where did the Uber Feminists go?
Female building control inspector and electrician on our recent extension (both selected by the - male - main contractor) but definitely a minority!
🚨 BREAKING: Net migration fell by 20% to 728,000 from 906,000 in the year from June 2023 to June 2024
So just two Coventries instead of three. Well that's all right then: I was worried for a bit. We should be able to build 728,000 houses in a year, easy. Whew, that's a relief and no mistake.
(opens window and screams)
"In 2021-22, there were 809,000 second homes owned by households in England"
Second homes are a red herring. We have way fewer of them than most other European countries, and way fewer vacant properties. What we lack is housing redundancy: more houses than we need. That's what France, Spain and Italy have. It means housing is affordable and it also frees up property for tourism.
@TimS As proportion of income, Spain has higher rents than the UK, while France has significantly higher mortgage costs (similar renting costs). Italy has broadly similar mortgage costs, but lower rents.
That housing surplus hasn't translated into lower costs. I appreciate that confounds basic economic principles, but that's what the data shows. Indeed, the countries that we associate with a very high quality of living (Nordics), actually have the highest housings costs anywhere in the OECD.
The Germans seem to have the lowest costs for a comparable country, though they have very low rates of ownership, and 4x the proportion of people living in flats compared with the UK.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
No, they aren't; certainly not all of them.
Though no doubt, like everything else, they will be subject to radical change over the next few years.
Immigration was never absolutely "necessary". That's really beside the point.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
Nor me – nor a female builder or dustbin(wo)man. Only 1 in 10,000 builders are female: where did the Uber Feminists go?
Female building control inspector and electrician on our recent extension (both selected by the - male - main contractor) but definitely a minority!
There's a female plumber locally, although she's retired (by reason of age) now.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Make University Competitive Again.
Expanding the number of places has devalued degrees and given young people an unnecessary debt burden.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I don't think Oxbridge, the top Russell Group and Ivy League US colleges are doomed but with rising fees and costly student loans the others will need to show why they are a better offer for school leavers than apprenticeships on the job
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Net immigration has fallen on the latest figures today precisely as Sunak tightened visa requirements before he left office
Embarrassing spin. You campaigned to get the Tories elected on a promise of cutting it to the tens of thousands and now you're trying to claim net migration of 700k as an achievement.
Sweden tightened the rules and now they have net emigration, so it can be done, but clearly not by the Tories.
I've come to the conclusion that the Conservatives will never actually deliver what centre right voters want, unless another right wing party can hold their feet to the fire.
Trouble is that humans, not just centre-right voters, insist on wanting multiple things, many of which turn out to be contradictory when you look at the behind-the-scenes wiring.
So cutting net migration is a popular idea, but many of the consequences wouldn't be. Fewer migrant workers pushes up pay (yay!) which pushes up inflation (boo!) and encourages employers to automate things like checkouts (double boo!).
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
You can't just do it all with 2, you also need some of 1 in terms of supporting those women who want to be stay at home mothers and the traditional family.
Otherwise the culture still pushes women having careers first and libertarian lifestyle choices above motherhood
What do you mean by the words, "supporting those women who want to be stay at home mothers and the traditional family" and why do you think that is part of category 1 rather than 2?
For example, I would argue that if you address the housing crisis and reduce the cost of housing then you make it easier for a family to provide themselves with decent accommodation and living standards on a single income, enabling one parent to stay at home with children if they wish to do so. That fits into category 2.
As too often 2 pushes the self above the traditional family.
Housing costs themselves have risen in large part because more women work and so you get 2 couples getting a mortgage or renting increasing the prices that can be paid and leading to prices that will rise for housing costs as a result
This has been an issue for the entire period of Conservative led Government for 14 years, and STARMER HAS NOT FIXED IT IN FOUR MONTHS.
And he GAVE some in the public sector a PAY RISE.
HOW DARE HE !
2008 seems a carefully chosen start point. Expect one based around 2007 when incomes increase a little more. I wonder when they will notice that wages are increasing quite a lot faster than inflation.
(That's my capitals quota for the day, I think.)
Look at this page for some interestingly balanced headlines:
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Net immigration has fallen on the latest figures today precisely as Sunak tightened visa requirements before he left office
Embarrassing spin. You campaigned to get the Tories elected on a promise of cutting it to the tens of thousands and now you're trying to claim net migration of 700k as an achievement.
Sweden tightened the rules and now they have net emigration, so it can be done, but clearly not by the Tories.
I've come to the conclusion that the Conservatives will never actually deliver what centre right voters want, unless another right wing party can hold their feet to the fire.
Trouble is that humans, not just centre-right voters, insist on wanting multiple things, many of which turn out to be contradictory when you look at the behind-the-scenes wiring.
So cutting net migration is a popular idea, but many of the consequences wouldn't be. Fewer migrant workers pushes up pay (yay!) which pushes up inflation (boo!) and encourages employers to automate things like checkouts (double boo!).
Would higher pay in the UK have increased the cost of goods that we import from China? No, it would have just enriched British workers.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
Nor me – nor a female builder or dustbin(wo)man. Only 1 in 10,000 builders are female: where did the Uber Feminists go?
Female building control inspector and electrician on our recent extension (both selected by the - male - main contractor) but definitely a minority!
There's a female plumber locally, although she's retired (by reason of age) now.
When we had a home visit shortly after Mrs J gave birth to our son, one of the midwives was male. A really nice chap, and Mrs J did not mind.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I don't think Oxbridge, the top Russell Group and Ivy League US colleges are doomed but with rising fees and costly student loans the others will need to show why they are a better offer for school leavers than apprenticeships on the job
Is there an argument for making professions like law and accountancy accessible by articles (=apprenticeship) as they were OUAT?
The Tories legacy is mind boggling bad. For the all their talk for 14 years on immigration it ends with 900k a year.
Hence Reform. If Boris Johnson destroyed the Tories, it wasn’t because he was a populist but because he was a liberal on immigration.
You could try to blame it all on Johnson, but Truss took over in September 2022, and Sunak in November 2022, so Sunak had nearly 8 months to implement policy that would affect the immigration numbers for the entirety of the year ending June 2024.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Net immigration has fallen on the latest figures today precisely as Sunak tightened visa requirements before he left office
Embarrassing spin. You campaigned to get the Tories elected on a promise of cutting it to the tens of thousands and now you're trying to claim net migration of 700k as an achievement.
Sweden tightened the rules and now they have net emigration, so it can be done, but clearly not by the Tories.
I've come to the conclusion that the Conservatives will never actually deliver what centre right voters want, unless another right wing party can hold their feet to the fire.
Trouble is that humans, not just centre-right voters, insist on wanting multiple things, many of which turn out to be contradictory when you look at the behind-the-scenes wiring.
So cutting net migration is a popular idea, but many of the consequences wouldn't be. Fewer migrant workers pushes up pay (yay!) which pushes up inflation (boo!) and encourages employers to automate things like checkouts (double boo!).
Would higher pay in the UK have increased the cost of goods that we import from China? No, it would have just enriched British workers.
That's about 7 percent of all imports, rather less of stuff sold in the UK.
And even then, there are the costs of distribution and selling in the UK, which will go with UK wages.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I don't think Oxbridge, the top Russell Group and Ivy League US colleges are doomed but with rising fees and costly student loans the others will need to show why they are a better offer for school leavers than apprenticeships on the job
Is there an argument for making professions like law and accountancy accessible by articles (=apprenticeship) as they were OUAT?
They still are. Personally, if I were starting again, I'd find that more attractive than the university route, or possibly qualifying first as a legal executive.
I see Trump is claiming to have already solved the Mexico border and drug crisis.
Is that a sign that he doesn't intend to go ahead with tariffs "on day one" ? It's really impossible at this stage to work out how exactly he's going to govern. Other than erratically.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I don't think Oxbridge, the top Russell Group and Ivy League US colleges are doomed but with rising fees and costly student loans the others will need to show why they are a better offer for school leavers than apprenticeships on the job
Is there an argument for making professions like law and accountancy accessible by articles (=apprenticeship) as they were OUAT?
They still are. Personally, if I were starting again, I'd find that more attractive than the university route, or possibly qualifying first as a legal executive.
I think fairly radical changes across the whole of education (beyond perhaps the earliest primary years) are pretty likely quite soon. The "traditional" education so beloved of the late lamented Michael Gove really doesn't prepare kids for the coming world.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I don't think Oxbridge, the top Russell Group and Ivy League US colleges are doomed but with rising fees and costly student loans the others will need to show why they are a better offer for school leavers than apprenticeships on the job
Is there an argument for making professions like law and accountancy accessible by articles (=apprenticeship) as they were OUAT?
They still are. Personally, if I were starting again, I'd find that more attractive than the university route, or possibly qualifying first as a legal executive.
One of the benefits of an interest in Family History is that one turns up some, to us, odd situations. One of my ancestors, in the mid 19th C. qualified as a doctor of medicine by doing an apprenticeship as an apothecary-surgeon, then getting a degree in medicine by simply turning up to the university and doing and passing the MD exam. No formal study involved.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
Even St Andrew's?
Overseas travel is also, of course, almost entirely "unnecessary". But I hardly expect it to disappear.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
I was in a taxi driven by a lady on Monday evening.
I hope you told her to go home immediately and have a baby.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
What's in it for them if they don't want to ?
Well uber liberal feminist professional career women may not want to but the average woman will want a family and children ultimately.
Wow. Just wow. You are just a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing husbands to rape their wives.
Hardly, uber liberal professional women don't support Trump or Meloni but they still win anyway.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
Uber feminism is clearly not working. I've never had a female Uber driver.
I was in a taxi driven by a lady on Monday evening.
I hope you told her to go home immediately and have a baby.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I don't think Oxbridge, the top Russell Group and Ivy League US colleges are doomed but with rising fees and costly student loans the others will need to show why they are a better offer for school leavers than apprenticeships on the job
Is there an argument for making professions like law and accountancy accessible by articles (=apprenticeship) as they were OUAT?
They still are. Personally, if I were starting again, I'd find that more attractive than the university route, or possibly qualifying first as a legal executive.
Unless you are a top barrister or judge who really needs to know lots of case law, all the statutes and legal theory as you will be doing major Crown court or High court and Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases you don't really need to do a law degree. Especially if you are a solicitor just spending half your time representing criminals at the local police station and magistrates court or doing conveyancing or wills
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
I do have a question, what should net migration actually be?
And if it fell to that level, assuming it stayed there would people actually be happy or will it always be too high?
The same it was in the early/mid 1990s.
In the early/mid 1990s the elderly (65+) were 16% of the population. Now they are 20%, by the middle of the century they will be 25%, and by the end of the century 31%. Either more old people work, or we have much more automation, or we accept that our labour market will keep on demanding more workers from abroad.
Or younger British people have more babies
Be careful what you wish for though.
I was trying to help a woman last week: in her late 20s, single, 3 children, eldest two both have issues, eldest receives DLA, she's been told to apply for DLA for child 2. They're on UC, in (unsatisfactory) social housing, she hasn't worked for 9 years, has lots of debt she can never pay...
On the bright side, she's having another baby, due next month. So that should help the demographics.
More younger people getting married and then having children especially.
Though even that woman is at least more invested in the future and had children, even if she does not have a high flying career.
The reality is uber feminism spreads the lie most women can have high flying professional and managerial careers and can put that even above motherhood. The reality is most can't but most women can be mothers and have children.
VP elect Vance could have been more diplomatic about childless cat ladies but his point more women need to have more children was correct
The world will need women to have more babies if we want to avoid demographic collapse. Yes.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
Yes. We see this with Musk ad his ilk. America can hold more people. But (the wrong sort of) immigrants are bad. Therefore we need existing women to have more kids. And we shall do this by restricting abortions and access to contraceptives.
A distinctly anti-woman agenda.
Well the Vatican and evangelical Christians and many conservative Muslims and Orthodox Jews will like it too
They like all sorts of stuff that sane humans wouldn't give the time of day to. We don't need religion making policy. You'll be wanting blasphemy laws next!
Not so long, in the great scheme of things, that Unitarians could be accused of treason because they didn't follow C of E doctrine on the Trinity.
As with @OldKingCole - something I learned from genealogical work. (A common confusion arises because they had to call themselves Presbyterian for sasfety.)
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
A great place to meet a life partner too, as we keep reminding our eldest daughter (7 weeks into her first term)!
The vast majority is for work and study, but for Starmer stopping the boats will remain key even though it is 30,000 as Farage goes full on Trump over the gross numbers as he has just done in a news conference
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
A great place to meet a life partner too, as we keep reminding our eldest daughter (7 weeks into her first term)!
But only to be permitted to [edit] posh and well off people, at least one PBer seems to think.
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
A great place to meet a life partner too, as we keep reminding our eldest daughter (7 weeks into her first term)!
I wonder how many of the people who like to see immigration reduced to roughly zero would be happy with the consequences of that change? Are they happy to pay increased process for food and care, as those sectors are forced to pay the going rate for staff rather than just import cheap workers? Ditto bar staff, restaurant and retail workers. Or much worse waiting lists for NHS treatment because there is a shortage of medical staff for the next 5-10 years while we train more up.
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
Universities are doomed, and, for the same reason, immigration will soon be entirely unnecessary
I thought you might jump in with that. On the whole I agree. There must be a role for them in the future for research but for teaching I'm coming to the conclusion you're right, or at least the model needs to be very different.
Unis perform another function - a way for large cohorts of teenagers to leave home, make new friends, expand and mature a bit, generally transition into young adults. If they didn't exist we'd have to invent something similar.
A friend, who did a PhD in art history, argued for a version of the Grand Tour. Spend 8 months, each, in 6 different major cultural cities. Work as a barista or similar, spend your spare time sketching in the museums. At the end of the 4 years, you would have a chunk of the language, friends, a knowledge of the culture and how to navigate it.
Comments
That's all pre-election, so the Conservatives can claim some credit, even aside from the X hundred million thrown at Rwanda.
Three months more of bunfight before Sir Keir's feet can be held to the fire.
Bookmark my other post for a review in late February
I'm sorry I missed the previous thread. Can anyone tell me whether there's been an assessment of the impact on tourism?
Putin is not a reasonable actor - if so he wouldn't have invaded in the first place, or directed a campaign of mass bombing against civilian targets.
But capitulation to his threats wouldn't eliminate the risk. It would probably encourage him to try again for further gains.
And JJ is correct in thinking there are serious deterrents to the first use of even a small tactical nuclear weapon. The same considerations of how to respond would still apply - and that might include a massive conventional response from NATO.
There are broadly two ways in which you might attempt to achieve that.
1. You could reduce personal freedom and choice for women so that they had no option but to give birth to babies.
2. You could make having children an easier or more attractive choice so that more women would choose to have more babies and have the babies they want to have, but aren't able to for whatever reason.
The problem I have with cultural Conservatives is that their approach is all (1) with a does of anti-(2) for class war reasons.
There's an air of using the demographic situation as a means to refight the battles the right lost on freedom for women, and having much less interest in demography itself.
“We had a massive agenda” - you had two slogans.
I can’t believe Johnson actually believes any of this stuff.
And yes, it does not stand up logically. It's perhaps an attempt to paint opponents as bad-faith actors.
In every case – even the US, which has seen blistering economic growth by the standards of the rest of the world – wages have still not risen enough to overtake the sharp rise in prices suffered since 2021.'
I suspect the same people would be screaming out against paying more personally or in tax for goods and services, or the inability to get NHS treatment.
Which explains why the previous government did nothing about immigration as setting a level involves quite a hard balancing act, you can't simply cut it without significant consequences.
FWIW I think foreign students is the obvious place to look, there were almost none when I was at Uni but that will mean a complete change to the current broken University funding model. Another one in the 'too hard' pile left behind by the outgoing government. There is no easy answer, whatever level you think is the 'right' one, including the status quo.
The rightwing backlash against uber feminism across the western world is under way
My wife and I have also had to change, and to be honest have lost the travel bug after years of international travel, and feel safest at and near our home and family
A distinctly anti-woman agenda.
Otherwise the culture still pushes women having careers first and libertarian lifestyle choices above motherhood
It's something I've considered as a hypothetical - would I want my children to go through what I did with my father ?
While I wouldn't for a moment want to change that - he was someone determined to hang on to life (even in dementia) - it's not something I would choose (assuming I had the capacity to do so) in his position.
But my children would probably try to talk me out of it, too.
AI Overview
Learn more
The average number of people per household in the UK was 2.36 in 2022. However, the average household size varies by region, with London having an average of 2.57 people per household, and the South East having an average of 2.43 people per household.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) recommends using a national average of 2.4 people per dwelling when using national data. However, occupancy rates vary by the size of the dwelling, so it's important to use locally relevant data when it's available.
The occupancy rating for a household is calculated by comparing the number of bedrooms the household requires to the number of bedrooms it has. A household with more bedrooms than required is considered under-occupied, while a household with fewer bedrooms than required is considered overcrowded. In 2021, 68.8% of households in England and 76.3% of households in Wales were under-occupied.
Not by much, mind so the issue pretty much is as was given those figures.
"Free movement" sounds scary, but it's actually better for keeping immigration lower. Boris and Rishi oversaw high numbers of work visas, which was the main driver of long-term immigration (not students, not asylum seekers).
I'd like to go to SW Wales to do some family history research.
Unless you mean supporting a return to a patriarchal society.
No. They are women. They do not want to be forced to have kids they do not want.
If people like you want women to have more kids, I'd suggest several broad approaches:
*) Men have to do *much* more to support kids and their wives.
*) Treat women, and their personal choices, with respect.
*) Spend a fuckload more supporting kids.
https://x.com/nicholaswatt/status/1862031440810037664
Had he supplied Abrams tanks, F16s and longer range missiles in significant numbers earlier in the conflict, the invasion might have been defeated by now.
Which would have saved both sides tens, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, and many billions of expenditure.
His choices led to net migration of 728,000.
Instead of implementing policies to reduce net migration he used a considerable amount of his time as Prime Minister, of the Home Office's time and of the whole government's time and legislative agenda to pass law on the Rwanda plan, that would address much less than 11.5% of the net migration that he presided over (not all asylum applicants arriving by small boats).
Sweden tightened the rules and now they have net emigration, so it can be done, but clearly not by the Tories.
What I have noticed since moving to a group of streets of very small 2-3 bed Edwardian houses, is that a much greater percentage have families (and often large ones). In my old street there were relatively few families in the houses, they were mostly older people whose families had left home. I also notice that's also true to an extent of the slightly larger interwar semis in the neighbouring streets where I am now.
So it looks to me here that what has been lost is the ability of families to trade up to larger properties as their families grow/get older, as I was lucky enough still to be able to do 25 years ago.
Another point I'd make is on safeguards. Debate here is angled primarily from one direction, ie we must make them strong enough. No argument there. But we should also test in the other direction. Are there too many safeguards? Is the process too restrictive, too cumbersome? Because there is risk there too, the risk that a bill aiming to alleviate a certain type of suffering fails to impact most of it.
The Tories must not only be seen to be responding on policy but must be believed. That latter bit is ridiculously tough given their track record.
The thing that will keep them in the game is whether Starmer Labour continues to falter, and that they have to hope Farage implodes or that he has a ceiling based on the fact he’s a twerp. But they really face a huge challenge.
I'd really like to see people like you attacking such men, rather than women.
They put the planters in (which are bad enough), and then someone did the "but motorcycles" wibble, and they added a modern overlapping chicane contraption - which is not lawful afaics under HWA1980 S137 "Wilful obstruction of a Public Highway". I think that underpass is probably a Public Highway,
I don't get the mentality of installing something that makes life difficult for disabled people at ONE end of an underpass, never mind pissing scarce council resources up the wall by adding more at the OTHER end 25m away, making it even MORE difficult.
At least the one in my posted pic is a 1980s relic.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4427407,-2.3905761,3a,80.6y,179.65h,64.6t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sPt55DG3dw_v_QsNoJ35RiQ!2e0!5s20240601T000000!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=25.39734340241816&panoid=Pt55DG3dw_v_QsNoJ35RiQ&yaw=179.6524937421746!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEyNC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
We don't need religion making policy.
You'll be wanting blasphemy laws next!
For example, I would argue that if you address the housing crisis and reduce the cost of housing then you make it easier for a family to provide themselves with decent accommodation and living standards on a single income, enabling one parent to stay at home with children if they wish to do so. That fits into category 2.
This has been an issue for the entire period of Conservative led Government for 14 years, and STARMER HAS NOT FIXED IT IN FOUR MONTHS.
And he GAVE some in the public sector a PAY RISE.
HOW DARE HE !
2008 seems a carefully chosen start point. Expect one based around 2007 when incomes increase a little more. I wonder when they will notice that wages are increasing quite a lot faster than inflation.
(That's my capitals quota for the day, I think.)
And I think there's at least one woman builder on the new development; I *think* she's a scaffolder.
Some very good news for people with asthma and COPD.
The first new treatment for acute attacks in over 50 years—a monoclonal antibody vs interleukin-5 receptor-α—with efficacy in a randomized trial
https://x.com/EricTopol/status/1861925276252307893
It's also a British drug - AZN having bought the US biotech which developed it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7n1e8n721o
As an aside, the concept of "historic misconduct" is a very odd one.
That housing surplus hasn't translated into lower costs. I appreciate that confounds basic economic principles, but that's what the data shows. Indeed, the countries that we associate with a very high quality of living (Nordics), actually have the highest housings costs anywhere in the OECD.
The Germans seem to have the lowest costs for a comparable country, though they have very low rates of ownership, and 4x the proportion of people living in flats compared with the UK.
Though no doubt, like everything else, they will be subject to radical change over the next few years.
Immigration was never absolutely "necessary". That's really beside the point.
Former Johnson disciple defects
Expanding the number of places has devalued degrees and given young people an unnecessary debt burden.
So cutting net migration is a popular idea, but many of the consequences wouldn't be. Fewer migrant workers pushes up pay (yay!) which pushes up inflation (boo!) and encourages employers to automate things like checkouts (double boo!).
Housing costs themselves have risen in large part because more women work and so you get 2 couples getting a mortgage or renting increasing the prices that can be paid and leading to prices that will rise for housing costs as a result
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/
And even then, there are the costs of distribution and selling in the UK, which will go with UK wages.
Is that a sign that he doesn't intend to go ahead with tariffs "on day one" ?
It's really impossible at this stage to work out how exactly he's going to govern. Other than erratically.
Covid started 5 years ago this month. 5 years.
But I hardly expect it to disappear.
As with @OldKingCole - something I learned from genealogical work. (A common confusion arises because they had to call themselves Presbyterian for sasfety.)
Boats 30,000
Other Asylum 70,000
Safe and legal routes [Ukraine, etc ] 73,000
Family 87,000
Study 444,000
Work 453,000
The vast majority is for work and study, but for Starmer stopping the boats will remain key even though it is 30,000 as Farage goes full on Trump over the gross numbers as he has just done in a news conference