Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Economic literacy has never been part of the pro-EU argument. It is all vibes, and all inadequate craven people who desperately want the Swedes, the French and the Germans to like them. It's an emotional argument - it has never been a logical one.
the sites no 1 truss simp banging on about economic literacy
So, the US is suffering from a bit of a double whammy, economically.
Firstly, tariffs have led to everyday goods getting more expensive. This is a particular issue currently because it's the run up to Christmas, and it turns out that many things are meaningfully more expensive than last year.
Worse: because it is the low waged who are most likely to buy (say) clothes than come from Bangladesh, it is the low waged who are seeing the purchasing power hit the most.
Secondly, manufacturing employment is doing worse under Trump than Biden. Again, because tariffs. If you increase the cost of steel and energy for US auto makers, they respond by making cars in countries where steel and energy are cheaper. We did this in the 1980s, where tariffs were put on metals, and the result was a very minor improvement in a metals employment, matched by a much bigger decline in employment in industries which use those products.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
Lots of small British businesses refuse to sell to customers in the EU because of the customs paperwork and tariffs.
The key issue, as I understand it, is with country of origin rules. Suppose I want to buy some yarn from a dyer based in Edinburgh. The yarn they dye is from blue-faced Leicester sheep in Yorkshire, but the dye they use is imported. To export to the EU they have to provide paperwork proving the country of origin of the different inputs to the yarn, and a tariff will be charged for that proportion which is not British (i.e. the dye).
It's hugely complicated, and very bureaucratic, and too onerous for small businesses. So they don't sell. Or they tell EU customers that they have no idea what tariff will be charged by the customs authorities and the purchaser has to take the risk themselves (and then pay the additional admin charges). And then they stop doing that because of the large number of returns.
So, technically, there's a zero tariff trade deal for goods produced in Britain, from British components and raw materials, but in practice it is not that simple.
I think - or perhaps hope! - that some of this stuff is amenable to very boring technical negotiation rather than a full fat customs union.
After all, the UK is a net importer of EU goods, so it ought to be to the EU’s benefit. See also, the phyto-sanitary rules which impede straightforward trade of agricultural product.
Much of British economic malaise, it seems to me, is due to successive governments giving up on micro-economic reform. It’s become too cumbersome to “just do stuff”. Even the animal welfare reforms just announced - while perhaps welcome* on their own merits - may well have some negative economic second order effect.
*I am not anti-fox hunting, so I can’t sign up whole heartedly to these reforms.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
Apologies, my original post missed the point that it was the U.S. which imposes higher tariffs on the EU.
The U.S. is Britain’s second largest trading partner after the EU.
I take your point on the friction imposed by rules of origin paperwork, but I still think that surrendering trade policy to another state indefensible politically and economically.
The biggest problem with CU in my view is the EU is unlikely to concede trading advantages to the UK when it got what it wanted out of the Brexiteers one sided "oven ready" deal. Also the benefits of a CU while real aren't that massive either, so it may not be worth pushing for politically.
Nevertheless a customs union is absolutely economically literate in the sense it would help the economy overall
Absolutely not true. Given it would open our market to any third party country that has a trade deal with the EU without allowing reciprocal trade of British goods into their market, it would be very bad economically. And that is before you even start to consider that the EU is, if anything, in an even worse state economically than the UK.
Joining the Single Market makes a huge amount of economic sense. Joining a Customs Union does not.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
There's also quite a pernicious attitude that extends adolescence well into adulthood based on the idea that your brain isn't "fully developed", and therefore having a child in your twenties is almost regarded like a teenage pregnancy.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
Apologies, my original post missed the point that it was the U.S. which imposes higher tariffs on the EU.
The U.S. is Britain’s second largest trading partner after the EU.
I take your point on the friction imposed by rules of origin paperwork, but I still think that surrendering trade policy to another state indefensible politically and economically.
The biggest problem with CU in my view is the EU is unlikely to concede trading advantages to the UK when it got what it wanted out of the Brexiteers one sided "oven ready" deal. Also the benefits of a CU while real aren't that massive either, so it may not be worth pushing for politically.
Nevertheless a customs union is absolutely economically literate in the sense it would help the economy overall
Absolutely not true. Given it would open our market to any third party country that has a trade deal with the EU without allowing reciprocal trade of British goods into their market, it would be very bad economically. And that is before you even start to consider that the EU is, if anything, in an even worse state economically than the UK.
Joining the Single Market makes a huge amount of economic sense. Joining a Customs Union does not.
Depends on whether there's a sensible customs union agreement between the EU and the UK. We should always beware "oven ready deals". They have a habit of not turning out tasty
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I would favour returning to Freedom of Movement with the EU.
Britain’s migration issues appear to be with Syrians, Afghans, and the like - not with Poles and Spaniards.
Even Albanians, for example, aren’t strictly EU citizens and Freedom of Movement need not be extended to them.
As would I.
The popularity of a customs union in current polling isn't I suspect really about a CU, so much as the unpopularity of Brexit. Freedom of movement would also open up the possibility of rejoining the single market, of course.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Economic literacy has never been part of the pro-EU argument. It is all vibes, and all inadequate craven people who desperately want the Swedes, the French and the Germans to like them. It's an emotional argument - it has never been a logical one.
the sites no 1 truss simp banging on about economic literacy
I would favour returning to Freedom of Movement with the EU.
Britain’s migration issues appear to be with Syrians, Afghans, and the like - not with Poles and Spaniards.
Even Albanians, for example, aren’t strictly EU citizens and Freedom of Movement need not be extended to them.
As would I.
The popularity of a customs union in current polling isn't I suspect really about a CU, so much as the unpopularity of Brexit. Freedom of movement would also open up the possibility of rejoining the single market, of course.
The policial sweet spot ironically might be free movement of people but no CU/SM.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
Lots of small British businesses refuse to sell to customers in the EU because of the customs paperwork and tariffs.
The key issue, as I understand it, is with country of origin rules. Suppose I want to buy some yarn from a dyer based in Edinburgh. The yarn they dye is from blue-faced Leicester sheep in Yorkshire, but the dye they use is imported. To export to the EU they have to provide paperwork proving the country of origin of the different inputs to the yarn, and a tariff will be charged for that proportion which is not British (i.e. the dye).
It's hugely complicated, and very bureaucratic, and too onerous for small businesses. So they don't sell. Or they tell EU customers that they have no idea what tariff will be charged by the customs authorities and the purchaser has to take the risk themselves (and then pay the additional admin charges). And then they stop doing that because of the large number of returns.
So, technically, there's a zero tariff trade deal for goods produced in Britain, from British components and raw materials, but in practice it is not that simple.
I think - or perhaps hope! - that some of this stuff is amenable to very boring technical negotiation rather than a full fat customs union.
After all, the UK is a net importer of EU goods, so it ought to be to the EU’s benefit. See also, the phyto-sanitary rules which impede straightforward trade of agricultural product.
Much of British economic malaise, it seems to me, is due to successive governments giving up on micro-economic reform. It’s become too cumbersome to “just do stuff”. Even the animal welfare reforms just announced - while perhaps welcome* on their own merits - may well have some negative economic second order effect.
*I am not anti-fox hunting, so I can’t sign up whole heartedly to these reforms.
I would agree with that. I would like to see ministers get their heads down and work on achieving some marginal gains. After a while they start to add up.
If Britain were to get involved in another big internal debate over the EU, and another big external negotiation over the same, then the prospect for making marginal gains evaporates. It's much harder to make marginal gains when you don't know the big picture environment you are working in.
But my point was that the cost to Britain of being outside the Customs Union is currently a lot larger than the headline "zero tariff, zero quota" trade deal would suggest. Britain has to work hard to make up for that headwind.
Good article in the Times (free to read) by Paul Johnson about Britain’s plunging birth rate and the prospects of entering a time of population decline.
He makes the point that we as a species are very bad at anticipating reversals of trends. I’ve thought for a while that this would make for a very good book: a series of examples of trends that everyone thought would continue forever stopping and going into reverse. Inflation. Gold prices. Crime rates. World peace. TV watching. London population (twice). One of those I am looking out for in the coming decades is obesity.
I know of a lot of people on Mounjaro. Some go to the GP and some just buy off the internet. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff sold is not kosher with issues appearing in the future. As a species we can do stupid things when we see them on TikTok.
LLangollen canal really blows its banks - serious potential emergency, could have flooded Whitchurch. Fortunately the fire service got it under control and nobody seems to be hurt.
Have the Canals and Rivers Trust improved their safety game any since the Toddbrook reservoir incident in 2019, or are they still a serious accident waiting to happen? I guess this incident might suggest ongoing issues
CRT have had a serious financial crunch over recent years.
They have received enormous amounts of public money (hundreds of millions / billions) in recent decades, but have a fairly small active boating community as their own revenue base, who feel to an extent that canals are "ours", and aiui separable revenue generating assets have been hived off.
ThaT feels like private profit / public squalor again to me, but I'm not totally au fait with the detail so add a big pinch of salt. My particular angle is (obviously) around tow-paths all needing to be accessible and barrier-free as a quid pro quo for Government funding (like Scotland).
I'd have a law that makes towpaths at least public footpaths, and probably Restricted Byways or Bridleways (which is perhaps obvious as that is what towpaths were designed for ie boat horses), which then lets PROW law be used.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
Apologies, my original post missed the point that it was the U.S. which imposes higher tariffs on the EU.
The U.S. is Britain’s second largest trading partner after the EU.
I take your point on the friction imposed by rules of origin paperwork, but I still think that surrendering trade policy to another state indefensible politically and economically.
The biggest problem with CU in my view is the EU is unlikely to concede trading advantages to the UK when it got what it wanted out of the Brexiteers one sided "oven ready" deal. Also the benefits of a CU while real aren't that massive either, so it may not be worth pushing for politically.
Nevertheless a customs union is absolutely economically literate in the sense it would help the economy overall
Absolutely not true. Given it would open our market to any third party country that has a trade deal with the EU without allowing reciprocal trade of British goods into their market, it would be very bad economically. And that is before you even start to consider that the EU is, if anything, in an even worse state economically than the UK.
Joining the Single Market makes a huge amount of economic sense. Joining a Customs Union does not.
Depends on whether there's a sensible customs union agreement between the EU and the UK. We should always beware "oven ready deals". They have a habit of not turning out tasty
The learning point is to make sure that the next guy who comes along selling one, actually has an oven.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
Sure, but does that really impact TFRs?
To do this properly, you need to ask which developed world countries have done the best at keeping TFRs up, and which have done the worst, and then ask what unites the highest and the lowest.
If you look at Europe in the 21st Century, only France has been anywhere near replacement level - it's been in the 1.7 to 2.0 range for most of the period.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
That's an interesting theory. How is removing barriers to trade economically illiterate?
To use just one example, the EU faces a higher tariff than the UK right now.
So far as I know, there are no tariffs on UK-EU trade. So a customs union is merely an exercise in forfeiting trading sovereignty with respect to countries outside the EU.
The barriers to trade are with the supply chain. If a British product contains components from China let's say, it could have to pay tariffs if the non EU components are too high a value and there's expensive paper work involved in attesting all goods whether compliant or not
Doubt it EU faces significantly higher tariffs if at all compared with UK.
Apologies, my original post missed the point that it was the U.S. which imposes higher tariffs on the EU.
The U.S. is Britain’s second largest trading partner after the EU.
I take your point on the friction imposed by rules of origin paperwork, but I still think that surrendering trade policy to another state indefensible politically and economically.
The biggest problem with CU in my view is the EU is unlikely to concede trading advantages to the UK when it got what it wanted out of the Brexiteers one sided "oven ready" deal. Also the benefits of a CU while real aren't that massive either, so it may not be worth pushing for politically.
Nevertheless a customs union is absolutely economically literate in the sense it would help the economy overall
Absolutely not true. Given it would open our market to any third party country that has a trade deal with the EU without allowing reciprocal trade of British goods into their market, it would be very bad economically. And that is before you even start to consider that the EU is, if anything, in an even worse state economically than the UK.
Joining the Single Market makes a huge amount of economic sense. Joining a Customs Union does not.
Depends on whether there's a sensible customs union agreement between the EU and the UK. We should always beware "oven ready deals". They have a habit of not turning out tasty
The learning point is to make sure that the next guy who comes along selling one, actually has an oven.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
Sure, but does that really impact TFRs?
To do this properly, you need to ask which developed world countries have done the best at keeping TFRs up, and which have done the worst, and then ask what unites the highest and the lowest.
If you look at Europe in the 21st Century, only France has been anywhere near replacement level - it's been in the 1.7 to 2.0 range for most of the period.
Thanks almost entirely to immigration from the Maghreb
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
Aren't uni academics doing themselves out of a job in future if they are encouraging others not to have kids?
Fertility rates are crashing everywhere, once the world hits 9 billion people it'll be a much longer wait to see if it reaches 10 bn
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
Indeed and working class families tend to have children earlier than middle class families, often starting in their early twenties. Even though they will likely earn less in their twenties than their graduate couple counterparts who won’t normally have children until at least their thirties.
The religious also have more children than the non religious, being of faith is more likely to make you have children and early than being a rich homeowner
So, the US is suffering from a bit of a double whammy, economically.
Firstly, tariffs have led to everyday goods getting more expensive. This is a particular issue currently because it's the run up to Christmas, and it turns out that many things are meaningfully more expensive than last year.
Worse: because it is the low waged who are most likely to buy (say) clothes than come from Bangladesh, it is the low waged who are seeing the purchasing power hit the most.
Secondly, manufacturing employment is doing worse under Trump than Biden. Again, because tariffs. If you increase the cost of steel and energy for US auto makers, they respond by making cars in countries where steel and energy are cheaper. We did this in the 1980s, where tariffs were put on metals, and the result was a very minor improvement in a metals employment, matched by a much bigger decline in employment in industries which use those products.
Almost everything that Trump is doing is undermining the US economy- it is hardly surprising that confidence is falling off a cliff. Clearly the House of Representatives is already lost for the GOP. At this point few are confident that the Senate would be worse than marginally Democrat. However, I am beginning to think that the mid-terms may be epochal and that Trump will not see out his term.
Where, though, is there a figure with the courage and integrity of FDR?
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
I think it’s a combination of long standing demographic transition trends, and technology. The internet, smartphones, social media.
The lowest birth rates are in East Asia, with Korea bottom of the pile.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government. We live in interesting times.
In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021
Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.
If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I will be amazed if the four unionist parties can agree on enough to form a government, though. Independence isn’t the only issue. Currently it’s not even an important issue with the voters. Unless Reform try to abolish the Scottish parliament, all parties will currently be happy with continuing devolution, despite what they tell their supporters.
Who cares about forming a government? The main thing for unionists is to completely neuter the SNP so they have to actually focus on governing Scotland and Scottish domestic policy rather then endlessly whinging about the need for indyref2! A unionist majority does that even if the SNP still win most seats
Except another election will happen if no FM can be elected.
Unlikely, even the Tories gave Salmond and the SNP confidence and supply from 2007 to 2011 provided they didn’t push for indyref2
If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
Yes, obviously the declining birth rate is the fault of "bitter academics". It's clear now you point it out. It's not that people are looking at their own economic prospects and the cost of having children. No, it's because they're reading The Sociological Review. Thanks heavens for some common sense thinking from MaxPB!
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government. We live in interesting times.
In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021
Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.
If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I will be amazed if the four unionist parties can agree on enough to form a government, though. Independence isn’t the only issue. Currently it’s not even an important issue with the voters. Unless Reform try to abolish the Scottish parliament, all parties will currently be happy with continuing devolution, despite what they tell their supporters.
Who cares about forming a government? The main thing for unionists is to completely neuter the SNP so they have to actually focus on governing Scotland and Scottish domestic policy rather then endlessly whinging about the need for indyref2! A unionist majority does that even if the SNP still win most seats
Except another election will happen if no FM can be elected.
Unlikely, even the Tories gave Salmond and the SNP confidence and supply from 2007 to 2011 provided they didn’t push for indyref2
So on your logic a pro-indy majority of MSPs is sufficient to trigger indyref2. Must remember that. You certainly weren't claiming that before.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
Sure, but does that really impact TFRs?
To do this properly, you need to ask which developed world countries have done the best at keeping TFRs up, and which have done the worst, and then ask what unites the highest and the lowest.
If you look at Europe in the 21st Century, only France has been anywhere near replacement level - it's been in the 1.7 to 2.0 range for most of the period.
There you go! France is well known for being a very down to Earth culture, with no academics spouting abstruse philosophical nonsense. You wouldn't get a Frenchman writing something like
Nous sommes livrés à une solitude absolue. Personne ne peut nous parler et personne ne peut parler pour nous ; il faut nous en charger, chacun doit s’en charger lui-même.
Will Streeting has gone down in my estimation. A customs union is economically illiterate.
Economic literacy has never been part of the pro-EU argument. It is all vibes, and all inadequate craven people who desperately want the Swedes, the French and the Germans to like them. It's an emotional argument - it has never been a logical one.
the sites no 1 truss simp banging on about economic literacy
Touched a nerve did I petal?
Your claim of economic literacy certainly did.
It's possible to be a Brexiteer and economically literate - you recognise the economic damage caused by Brexit but think it's worth it for reasons. Rare as hens teeth though. In general they aren't on strong ground bandying economic illiteracy as an insult against people who knew what they were doing when they voted Remain
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
I think it’s a combination of long standing demographic transition trends, and technology. The internet, smartphones, social media.
The lowest birth rates are in East Asia, with Korea bottom of the pile.
It’s only going in one direction, globally.
Possibly bonkers theory - I think having children is a herd-like behaviour, or like an infectious "disease". Those of my peers who are having children inevitably have an older sibling who has had one, or are in an environment with lots of young women so the hit-rate of coming across a baby is high (e.g. nurses).
It's actually very rare for someone like me to interact with children - I'm either in the office, or at home, or doing activities that don't really lend themselves to kids. As we've discussed on PB, children simply do not play in the street or walk to school as they did in the past. I have much more exposure to my friends from all around the world travelling and drinking and having a wonderful time via instagram and whatsapp.
I think our highly insular domestic lives, along with travel and distance from family, are the primary reasons why it doesn't really occur to people to have kids. Watch this space though - one of my friends is pregnant, and another has a 3 month old. If my theory holds...
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
In principle I can see why in culpability terms simple dangerous or careless driving (and indeed cycling) should be equalised with sentences where serious injury occurs or even potentially death after dangerous or careless driving. In practical terms there aren’t the prison spaces for jailing more dangerous drivers who don’t kill or injure and careless drivers even if they seriously injure or sometimes even if they kill normally just get suspended sentences and community orders not immediate prison terms unless on drink or drugs anyway.
Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.
I also agree we need more cycle lanes
Thank-you for the reply.
What I'm after from Mark Park is some insight on how to encourage the likes of Lord Hogan-Howe and Baroness Rolfe to improve the quality of their contributions, since at present it is mainly going round in culture war circles. There are linked questions around such as why we do not have universal British Standards required for Lithium Batteries, as we do for say Washing Machines, to deal with fire risks, and tighter control of delivery cycle businesses so that dangerous behaviour is disincentivised rather than encouraged by business models.
On dangerous and careless, there is a definitional problem that I think Government of either side has not even looked at yet which causes dangerous to be charged as careless as the former requires mens rea, and there is endless nitpicking case law.
I'm a big fan of longer term suspended sentences, as an incentive for long-term good behaviour. In the UK we suspend sentences for up to 2 years (3 years is proposed). In Ireland they can do it for a decade.
The differential enforcement problem I highlight is partly imo about Jury identification with a defendant (ie: "I have done that, so it is not guilty"). There was a case this month where a driver near Ipswich went round a blind bend on a narrow road and killed one cyclist in a line of four coming the other way, and was found innocent. The defence was effectively "There was a 1.1m gap, that was enough room for them to fit and the one who was killed was out of line, therefore it was their fault that they were killed". The Jury said "not guilty". Whilst the law is clear that you are required to be able to stop in the room you can see, and leave the cyclist their own width plus 1.5m. Imo that requires a speed round that bend of at most 10-15 mph not the 20-30mph claimed, and the motor vehicle should have stopped for the pass.
(He was actually charged with death by careless; the initial headline was wrong.)
On that case he was likely guilty of careless driving as he was charged with even if the jury acquitted him. He should have left a 1.5m gap for all the cyclists.
However the driver was still doing only 30mph in a 60 mph limit road when he approached that bend and was not on his phone or on drugs or drunk. I can see why the jury acquitted him therefore, though there may be a case to make all narrow single track country roads 10 to 20mph limits maximum that is not the law now
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.
If male influencers want to influence the TFR then they should be encouraging stay at home dads who are eager to help with the chores, and not just the fun stuff like the cooking.
But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
It's interesting to see what is going on in finance-bro social media. Does this have the same genesis as the tradwife thing?
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.
Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.
Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
I think it’s a combination of long standing demographic transition trends, and technology. The internet, smartphones, social media.
The lowest birth rates are in East Asia, with Korea bottom of the pile.
It’s only going in one direction, globally.
Possibly bonkers theory - I think having children is a herd-like behaviour, or like an infectious "disease". Those of my peers who are having children inevitably have an older sibling who has had one, or are in an environment with lots of young women so the hit-rate of coming across a baby is high (e.g. nurses).
It's actually very rare for someone like me to interact with children - I'm either in the office, or at home, or doing activities that don't really lend themselves to kids. As we've discussed on PB, children simply do not play in the street or walk to school as they did in the past. I have much more exposure to my friends from all around the world travelling and drinking and having a wonderful time via instagram and whatsapp.
I think our highly insular domestic lives, along with travel and distance from family, are the primary reasons why it doesn't really occur to people to have kids. Watch this space though - one of my friends is pregnant, and another has a 3 month old. If my theory holds...
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
Your methodology is good HYUFD, but I don't think tactical voting is going to be as big this time. Reform have scooped up lots of voters including some SNP, but more from Slab and Scon. As we get closer to polling, these guys won't be backing out. you're right, it's definitely white working class areas where the Labour vote is under severe pressure. The only reason the SNP look like retaining scores of constituency seats is due to the splintering of the unionist vote.
Labour should be worried about the list vote as most of their MSPs are elected there. The guy in Edinburgh Southern should be ok, maybe Jackie Baillie, East Lothian is a possible gain too. There's going to be a squeeze on the list vote in urban Scotland from Reform on the right and the Greens on the left, in rural areas there is a chance for the Lib Dems to come back - can they get their message out?
Elsewhere there could be some gains for other parties in rural Scotland. For the time being, I generally agree with the ballotbox Scotland analysis here
You are still focusing on 2024 DocG and the last general election in Scotland where indeed more Labour voters have gone Reform than SNP voters have. Since the 2021 Holyrood election though more SNP voters have gone Reform than 2021 Scottish Labour voters have gone Reform, even though the Scottish Tories have lost most to Reform.
Some SNP voters have gone Green even on the constituency vote too not just for the list vote
I think what will do for a Labour comeback is the squeeze their vote is getting from other parties, the list is going to be way more competitive this time.
A lot of independence minded voters are now voting Green, and they won't have won many (if any) constituencies, so expect the Greens to be picking up 2 MSPs in a lot of areas. Ditto Reform, and where Labour previously got 3 or 4 list MSPs in regions, there will now be an almighty fight to get the 5th, 6th and 7th list MSPs.
You are right, the Labour vote of around 18% on the list is static from 2021, but I don't think the results will fall as kindly, if this polling continues. I can't see them getting 4 MSPs in Glasgow, for example, if the Greens are polling as strong, *unless* (big caveat) the Greens start winning constituencies.
The forecast on ballotbox page has Lab losing 3 seats on 2021, list MSPs in each of South, West and North East Scotland. I'm in South Scotland and would struggle to disagree with that, they are not polling as well outside the central belt
On UNS that is underestimating the SNP constituency seats that would go Labour on the projected 4% swing or so from SNP to Labour since 2021 on the constituency vote polls for Holyrood show
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
I think it’s a combination of long standing demographic transition trends, and technology. The internet, smartphones, social media.
The lowest birth rates are in East Asia, with Korea bottom of the pile.
It’s only going in one direction, globally.
Possibly bonkers theory - I think having children is a herd-like behaviour, or like an infectious "disease". Those of my peers who are having children inevitably have an older sibling who has had one, or are in an environment with lots of young women so the hit-rate of coming across a baby is high (e.g. nurses).
It's actually very rare for someone like me to interact with children - I'm either in the office, or at home, or doing activities that don't really lend themselves to kids. As we've discussed on PB, children simply do not play in the street or walk to school as they did in the past. I have much more exposure to my friends from all around the world travelling and drinking and having a wonderful time via instagram and whatsapp.
I think our highly insular domestic lives, along with travel and distance from family, are the primary reasons why it doesn't really occur to people to have kids. Watch this space though - one of my friends is pregnant, and another has a 3 month old. If my theory holds...
Quite frankly I tend to be a bit sceptical of all the dismal almost Malthusian wailing on this topic. Something may turn up, things will change. However, like climate change the by the time you’ve really noticed it, there is almost very little you can do about it. Well happy Christmas and all that.
LLangollen canal really blows its banks - serious potential emergency, could have flooded Whitchurch. Fortunately the fire service got it under control and nobody seems to be hurt.
Have the Canals and Rivers Trust improved their safety game any since the Toddbrook reservoir incident in 2019, or are they still a serious accident waiting to happen? I guess this incident might suggest ongoing issues
They are starved of money. There is a real risk of canals closing due to lack of maintenance.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
In principle I can see why in culpability terms simple dangerous or careless driving (and indeed cycling) should be equalised with sentences where serious injury occurs or even potentially death after dangerous or careless driving. In practical terms there aren’t the prison spaces for jailing more dangerous drivers who don’t kill or injure and careless drivers even if they seriously injure or sometimes even if they kill normally just get suspended sentences and community orders not immediate prison terms unless on drink or drugs anyway.
Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.
I also agree we need more cycle lanes
Thank-you for the reply.
What I'm after from Mark Park is some insight on how to encourage the likes of Lord Hogan-Howe and Baroness Rolfe to improve the quality of their contributions, since at present it is mainly going round in culture war circles. There are linked questions around such as why we do not have universal British Standards required for Lithium Batteries, as we do for say Washing Machines, to deal with fire risks, and tighter control of delivery cycle businesses so that dangerous behaviour is disincentivised rather than encouraged by business models.
On dangerous and careless, there is a definitional problem that I think Government of either side has not even looked at yet which causes dangerous to be charged as careless as the former requires mens rea, and there is endless nitpicking case law.
I'm a big fan of longer term suspended sentences, as an incentive for long-term good behaviour. In the UK we suspend sentences for up to 2 years (3 years is proposed). In Ireland they can do it for a decade.
The differential enforcement problem I highlight is partly imo about Jury identification with a defendant (ie: "I have done that, so it is not guilty"). There was a case this month where a driver near Ipswich went round a blind bend on a narrow road and killed one cyclist in a line of four coming the other way, and was found innocent. The defence was effectively "There was a 1.1m gap, that was enough room for them to fit and the one who was killed was out of line, therefore it was their fault that they were killed". The Jury said "not guilty". Whilst the law is clear that you are required to be able to stop in the room you can see, and leave the cyclist their own width plus 1.5m. Imo that requires a speed round that bend of at most 10-15 mph not the 20-30mph claimed, and the motor vehicle should have stopped for the pass.
(He was actually charged with death by careless; the initial headline was wrong.)
On that case he was likely guilty of careless driving as he was charged with even if the jury acquitted him.
However the driver was still doing only 30mph in a 60 mph limit road when he approached that bend and was no on his phone or on drugs or drunk. I can see why the jury acquitted him therefore, though there may be a case to make all single track country roads 10 to 20mph limits maximum that is not the law now
Particularly as that one was a designated "Quiet Lane".
I have (not very extreme) views on rural speed limits around 50mph on single carriageway roads, and 40mph on B-roads, and 30mph on single-track but it needs a commitment to investment, some enforcement and culture change. And a serious commitment to PROW improvement, but on that TBH they are ALL (except for Greens and Welshgov + Scotgov) arse-sitters.
And (husk off) the Tories would go "culture war" or have a patsy for the NFU / CLA (as eg Theresa Villiers), Reform would have their head in the default 1970s Tunbridge Wells garden shed, and the current Labour Government have lost their mojo and are too timid to drive it nationally as is required - and will do something mealy-mouthed that would defer to LHAs and therefore leave the bad places to stay bad (as they are now doing post Louise Haigh).
Action on single tracks would need to start somewhere like Scotland or Cornwall, where more people get killed.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
True but professional graduate women especially also cannot expect husbands and fathers with high intelligence, high income and perfect emotional intelligence all the time too. Women being too fussy only boosts Tate
If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.
If male influencers want to influence the TFR then they should be encouraging stay at home dads who are eager to help with the chores, and not just the fun stuff like the cooking.
But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.
Isn't it about being a team? This is the issue, people treat it as transactional or adversarial but marriage is teamwork, especially in a family situation. It's not about "oh I cleaned this so you need to clean that", at least I've never seen an example of a successful marriage that works like that. When the bookshelves fell apart last month I didn't tell my wife, "you didn't clean the house last week so I'm not going to fix them" that just seems like an insane way to live.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
I've heard this twice from newly married couples in the last few months. I didn't pay any attention to it at the time, but now you mention it, maybe that's another contributory factor.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
There's also quite a pernicious attitude that extends adolescence well into adulthood based on the idea that your brain isn't "fully developed", and therefore having a child in your twenties is almost regarded like a teenage pregnancy.
Boomers’ behaviour shows that some peoples’ brains never fully develop.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
I have a Gen Z son and a Gen Z step-daughter, both of whom have recently graduated from university. I've chatted at length with them and some of their friends, and whenever the subject of children comes up, nobody has ever said anything about being taught that kids and families are a sacrifice. You really are talking complete nonsense, Max.
Most of them want kids one day, but the prime reasons given for delaying having a family seem to be: 1) Cost of housing and insecurity of rentals. 2) Unwillingness to commit to relationships (primarily, but not exclusively by the lads). 3) The importance attached to becoming established in a career and thus being able to afford (1).
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.
Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.
Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream
In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
Yes, as I just said it's about being a team and it's not just about leaning on women, I think it's about leaning on men too. Both men and women have completely screwed up expectations on how relationships and families work IMO. Men get fed a diet of bullshit from social media like Andrew Tate and very sadly too many young women think having an OnlyFans page is "empowering". As I keep saying, people need to go out and actually speak to Gen Z.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
I've heard this twice from newly married couples in the last few months. I didn't pay any attention to it at the time, but now you mention it, maybe that's another contributory factor.
I think it is a factor, definitely. But I also think that liberal minded people need to not just despair at the world and give up. All the crazy rightwingers are breeding like mad with their tradwives and it's a numbers game at the end of the day.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
Yes, as I just said it's about being a team and it's not just about leaning on women, I think it's about leaning on men too. Both men and women have completely screwed up expectations on how relationships and families work IMO. Men get fed a diet of bullshit from social media like Andrew Tate and very sadly too many young women think having an OnlyFans page is "empowering". As I keep saying, people need to go out and actually speak to Gen Z.
I agree with you about the malign influence of Tate and others like him - some of the lads do get some strange ideas from the internet - but I've never heard any of the girls describe having an OnlyFans page as empowering. Quite the opposite, in fact!
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
I think it depends on how desperate Labour becomes, which itself depends on how catastrophic the local elections are. If Labour has a true mare - for example losing control of London Boroughs which they currently run with large majorities - then switching to Streeting might be on the cards. The one caveat is if the big winner in the cities happens to be the Greens, Labour members might conclude that being more radical and passionate and tacking left is what's required.
Labour won a NEV of 35% in 2022, and will probably win about 10-15% in May. Reform won nothing in 2022, and will probably win 25-30% next year. The Greens would surge, but the traditional outperformance in local elections by the Lib Dem’s will take a lot of votes that would otherwise go to them. The Conservatives will probably win 20-25%, compared to 30% in 2022.
What that likely means is Labour being hit on multiple fronts.
Boroughs like Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland, Halton, Sandwell, Thurrock will go Reform.
Islington, Hackney, Camden, Lambeth, Birmingham, Southwark, Brent, South Tyneside, will be lost to NOC at least (Your Party will also be challenging in some).
The Tories will lose a string of counties and new unitaries to Reform, but pick up Westminster, Barnet, Wandsworth,
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
I suspect Labour will actually get about 20%, win London overall still and do better than expected in Scotland where Holyrood polls suggest Labour gains from the SNP as in the Hamilton by election. That will stop a bad night for Starmer becoming a catastrophe and may save his job
Otherwise agree with Reform and the Greens likely the main winners next year plus Plaid in Wales and the LDs treading water as the Tories and Labour collapse
Morning HYUFD,
I'm not so bullish over Labour in Scotland, they aren't polling as well as pre Hamilton, recent by elections in working class areas were poor for them. Right now they are losing voters to Reform and only slightly more competitive in white collar areas, and they are up against a party with only 1 MSP and effectively no Scottish leader.
Sarwar needs a very clear message and to take the fight on all flanks, to Reform, SNP and the wider electorate. It's easier said than done. He is going hard on the NHS, but needs to attack the SNPs record more. I don't share the view that Labour are heading for multiple gains over the SNP, they have both dropped, but Slabs vote has been squeezed more. Mr Starmer could find himself in big trouble once the votes are all counted up here. It all could change though
Morning DocG.
Since the 2021 Holyrood elections the SNP constituency vote is still down about 10 to 15% and the SLab vote only down about 5%. So you would still expect Labour to gain constituency MSPs from the SNP, more with unionist tactical voting. The SNP vote is actually down more than the Labour vote in Scotland since 2021.
Don’t forget the SNP have also been losing votes to Reform, especially white working class Scots who voted SNP in 2021 and maybe Labour in 2024. Sarwar does though need to attack the SNP hard I agree to get unionist tactical votes in Holyrood constituencies the SNP won in 2021 but where Labour were second
I foresee both the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives all losing seats to Reform. The seats that Labour would hope to gain from the SNP are seats that will have a strong Reform presence. While I don’t see Reform picking up many FPTP seats, they will win a lot of list seats. Things have changed a lot since Labour gained Hamilton. Starmer’s Labour are despised as much in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. Outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Greens are not as popular as they are in England, because they have a poor record in government from when they were part of the Bute House agreement. The Lib Dems will pick up a few more seats. The SNP will remain the largest party. Reform will probably be second. Labour, the Greens, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will be jostling for third place. I can’t see any way that anyone will be able to form a stable government. We live in interesting times.
In Scotland, as Reform are still not polling first like in England or even at least a clear second or sometimes narrow first as in Wales, Reform may help Labour gain constituency seats in Holyrood. That is provided more 2021 SNP voters vote Reform than 2021 Labour voters vote Reform on the constituency vote in Holyrood seats Labour were second to the SNP in 2021
Remember that Scotland has a form of proportional representation. If Reform were second in every seat in Scotland, they would not pick up any constituency seats, but would gain the majority of the regional seats.
If those Reform regional list gains are added to Labour gaining a number of SNP constituency seats as some 2021 SNP voters go Reform could give a unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011
I will be amazed if the four unionist parties can agree on enough to form a government, though. Independence isn’t the only issue. Currently it’s not even an important issue with the voters. Unless Reform try to abolish the Scottish parliament, all parties will currently be happy with continuing devolution, despite what they tell their supporters.
Who cares about forming a government? The main thing for unionists is to completely neuter the SNP so they have to actually focus on governing Scotland and Scottish domestic policy rather then endlessly whinging about the need for indyref2! A unionist majority does that even if the SNP still win most seats
Except another election will happen if no FM can be elected.
Unlikely, even the Tories gave Salmond and the SNP confidence and supply from 2007 to 2011 provided they didn’t push for indyref2
So on your logic a pro-indy majority of MSPs is sufficient to trigger indyref2. Must remember that. You certainly weren't claiming that before.
No, the UK government would correctly refuse indyref2 even if the SNP won a Holyrood majority until at least a generation since 2014. A unionist majority means the SNP can’t even ask for one though and have to focus on Scottish domestic policy
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
British society has always been quite anti-child. Eg kids should be "seen and not heard", boarding school, public support for the 2 child benefit cap etc. My wife and I were lucky to have been brought up in families who didn't share those kinds of attitudes, and maybe that's why we have three children. I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
I think your last sentence is absolutely 100% true. Kids aren't a cost or a burden, they're brilliant and I know that if we didn't have ours I'd living through a lifetime of regret. Again, the answer to this question is emotional, not monetary. In countries where they have huge incentives to have kids the birth rate is barely above ours, there's been this huge global push across all forms of media to discourage women from starting families and, as you say, paint children as a burden rather than a blessing. That's the attitude we need to change.
I am not sure that leaning on women to have kids is the best way to go about it. My wife wanted to have 3 kids because she knew I would play my part - I would be there for the childcare and do my fair share in terms of domestic tasks, I wouldn't be in the office all hours or down the pub after work, I would support her so she could have a meaningful career as well as having children, and I wouldn't cheat on her or run off with someone else leaving her holding the babies. Being a father means you can't always focus on your career and your weekends and evenings are not your own anymore. I think a big part of the problem is that women rightly expect more from their life nowadays, and men aren't willing to play their part to help make that happen. I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
Yes, as I just said it's about being a team and it's not just about leaning on women, I think it's about leaning on men too. Both men and women have completely screwed up expectations on how relationships and families work IMO. Men get fed a diet of bullshit from social media like Andrew Tate and very sadly too many young women think having an OnlyFans page is "empowering". As I keep saying, people need to go out and actually speak to Gen Z.
I have three Gen Z children but naturally they are lovely and as far as I know do not have an OnlyFans page, but perhaps that is just me being naive...
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?
How on earth is Wes Streeting going to be able to hold his seat at the next election?
He won’t lose to the Tories or LibDems, given the seats current demographics. A spirited campaign by a Gaza-motivated independent ran him surprisingly close last year, but who is to say what salience that issue will have, in domestic politics, in three years’ time?
And next time Labour will know they need to put some effort into defending the seat, and there will likely be a boost from Wes's status (assuming he has any by then).
If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.
If male influencers want to influence the TFR then they should be encouraging stay at home dads who are eager to help with the chores, and not just the fun stuff like the cooking.
But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.
TFR still holding up in the poorest but most religious continent, Africa though.
How religious parents of child bearing age are is probably the biggest factor in TFR
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?
Doesn't something like 1 or 2 percent of USA GDP go to legal expenses?
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
We also need to produce men who can be good husbands and fathers so that women will feel emotionally secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
True but professional graduate women especially also cannot expect husbands and fathers with high intelligence, high income and perfect emotional intelligence all the time too. Women being too fussy only boosts Tate
And, of course, AI now looks particularly attractive relative to their boyfriend.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.
Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.
Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream
In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate
Equally at that time no children meant zero support when you got old - remember that was before the State pension arrived..
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.
Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.
Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream
In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate
Good afternoon
You do know that times change and we live a far better life today despite all the problems we face
And why shouldn't more women go to university and have full time careers
Indeed our daughter in law did both and has three children, the youngest when she was 42
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?
Doesn't something like 1 or 2 percent of USA GDP go to legal expenses?
(Difficult to measure.)
Back before the US Republicans went insane, they proposed a reset on the income tax system - personal allowance, two rates and *no* exemptions.
Bill Clinton made a rare mistake and blurted out the quiet part “but it would throw hundreds of thousands of lawyers out of work”.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.
Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.
Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream
In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate
Even though they rented, only one income was required to pay the rent. Now it need two incomes to pay the rent.
If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.
I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.
Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.
Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.
If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.
If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.
The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.
You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.
Go and speak to Gen Z women and even some younger millennials, the attitude is pervasive. Universities have been teaching young women that kids, families etc... are a sacrifice and it sticks with them into later life. My theory is that misery loves company so those bitter childless academics are just passing their loneliness and bitterness onto the next generation.
You also have the problem of how can a family buy a house and get to a stable position in which they can have children.
Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.
Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream
In the 19th and early 20th centuries their great grandparents and great great grandparents rented their whole lives and still managed to have two, three or more children. Having to wait until your late 30s to be able to buy a home is not as big a factor as the relative decline of religion and more women going to university and having full time careers is in the declining birthrate
Equally at that time no children meant zero support when you got old - remember that was before the State pension arrived..
Strictly speaking, there was the Poor Law, but as that [edit] often entailed being banged up in the workhouse ...
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?
Doesn't something like 1 or 2 percent of USA GDP go to legal expenses?
(Difficult to measure.)
Back before the US Republicans went insane, they proposed a reset on the income tax system - personal allowance, two rates and *no* exemptions.
Bill Clinton made a rare mistake and blurted out the quiet part “but it would throw hundreds of thousands of lawyers out of work”.
This is - of course - the right answer.
No tax breaks for this, or subsidies for that. Tax rates for all kinds of income should be the same.
Politically impossible, of course, because everyone has their favourite tax break. (And everyone forgets that one man's tax break is another's burden.)
There's a lot of engineering him into position I think, and Starmer is clearly on board - not sure how else someone openly campaigning for the top job is still in the Cabinet. He is the annointed successor - and always was.
For that reason, I don't think he makes it.
Doubt he is anointed. There was number 10 briefing against him about a month ago.
IMO wouldn't be surprised if Starmer sacks him, says he needs to bring someone in to end the strikes.
And of course, the results in Wales and Scotland will be horrid.
You may see some LD gains from the Tories, Labour and SNP but offset by some LD losses to the Greens and Reform and Plaid
Mark Pack is a good scout and he has been dutifully recording the LD's ups and downs since the GE. It's been generally a pattern of modest progress, and I would expect that to continue through the May contests.
One would think the ID card Bill, and rejoining the EU moving the agenda, are both in the LibDem’s favour?
Mark Pack is standing down as Lib Dem President from January 1st, so he will have more time on his hands (as if!).
I hope to engage him in suggesting ways in which members of the House of Lords can be held to account when they waste the time of the HoL repeatedly spouting inane bollocks into the national conversation, displaying the hinterland of a lobotomised slug.
(That follows a particular recent debate on aspects of 'cycling' where there were peers reading out bits of the Telegraph, and proposing amendments to introduce laws that have already been in law for nearly half a century already.)
Since when has death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling been UK law for cyclists unlike the equivalent death or serious injury offences by dangerous or careless driving for drivers of vehicles?
1 of 2. Fairly serious answer.
You've alighted on non-controversial aspects. Those are the Government proposals, which I've been saying I have no problems with since they were raised on PB 1 or 2 (?) years ago. From my point of view it is tipping Parliamentary time away, which could be far better spent, on 0.3 or 0.5% edge cases, but some Parliamentarians have bees in their bonnets and these are on balance are minor changes that will affect very few people.
The ones I'm more concerned about are crass ignorance followed by vindictiveness. I think you need to read the debate and see what some of Lord Hogan-Howe's (the ex-Met Commissioner) crew are actually proposing *. They are after populist stuff to make their jerking knees feel better, rather than useful measures that will help improvement.
I think you need to read the debate to appreciate the ingrowing gormlessness of this group. One of my more serious concerns is that they have entirely swallowed the fake "disabled people vs cyclists" narrative.
Example: The Government proposal is that sentences for dangerous/careless and death by dangerous/careless should be equalised. No problem with that, as I have said. Though there will be concerns about equal enforcement.
Example: An amendment that cycling on a pavement should be "careless driving". The problem here is that we are made to cycle on shared pavements because that was the law introduced by Conservative Governments in the Cycle Tracks Act 1984, Local Transport Note 1986/1, and the National Cycling Strategy 1996. That has never been improved in most places - London and now Manchester are in some measure recent exceptions.
And long term investment in suitable mobility networks have never been made for periods of more than about a year or two at a time. Since our roads are so dangerous in many places, there is no option. Except of course, like people in wheelchairs we are forced into roads because the pavements are often blocked with dumped motor vehicles. Mr Cameron (or it may have been Ms May) cocking up his legislation, ignoring expert advice as to what he was doing, rendering on road cycle lanes unenforcible in around 2016, did not help.
In principle I can see why in culpability terms simple dangerous or careless driving (and indeed cycling) should be equalised with sentences where serious injury occurs or even potentially death after dangerous or careless driving. In practical terms there aren’t the prison spaces for jailing more dangerous drivers who don’t kill or injure and careless drivers even if they seriously injure or sometimes even if they kill normally just get suspended sentences and community orders not immediate prison terms unless on drink or drugs anyway.
Equating dangerous and mere careless driving in sentencing terms would of course be ridiculous.
I also agree we need more cycle lanes
Thank-you for the reply.
What I'm after from Mark Park is some insight on how to encourage the likes of Lord Hogan-Howe and Baroness Rolfe to improve the quality of their contributions, since at present it is mainly going round in culture war circles. There are linked questions around such as why we do not have universal British Standards required for Lithium Batteries, as we do for say Washing Machines, to deal with fire risks, and tighter control of delivery cycle businesses so that dangerous behaviour is disincentivised rather than encouraged by business models.
On dangerous and careless, there is a definitional problem that I think Government of either side has not even looked at yet which causes dangerous to be charged as careless as the former requires mens rea, and there is endless nitpicking case law.
I'm a big fan of longer term suspended sentences, as an incentive for long-term good behaviour. In the UK we suspend sentences for up to 2 years (3 years is proposed). In Ireland they can do it for a decade.
The differential enforcement problem I highlight is partly imo about Jury identification with a defendant (ie: "I have done that, so it is not guilty"). There was a case this month where a driver near Ipswich went round a blind bend on a narrow road and killed one cyclist in a line of four coming the other way, and was found innocent. The defence was effectively "There was a 1.1m gap, that was enough room for them to fit and the one who was killed was out of line, therefore it was their fault that they were killed". The Jury said "not guilty". Whilst the law is clear that you are required to be able to stop in the room you can see, and leave the cyclist their own width plus 1.5m. Imo that requires a speed round that bend of at most 10-15 mph not the 20-30mph claimed, and the motor vehicle should have stopped for the pass.
(He was actually charged with death by careless; the initial headline was wrong.)
On that case he was likely guilty of careless driving as he was charged with even if the jury acquitted him. He should have left a 1.5m gap for all the cyclists.
However the driver was still doing only 30mph in a 60 mph limit road when he approached that bend and was not on his phone or on drugs or drunk. I can see why the jury acquitted him therefore, though there may be a case to make all narrow single track country roads 10 to 20mph limits maximum that is not the law now
It's actually a 2.5m-3.0m width at least - as it is 1.5m plus the space for the cyclist plus the space between the cyclist and the verge / kerb.
The "30 in a 60" fails the most basic teaching. It is a limit not a target, or a safe speed for a road. That's peppered through the entire Highway Code.
So there's zero basis for any Jury to reach that conclusion, and a Judge should point it out when any lawyer tries the argument. Equally with "there was not time to react when he went round the corner". That, like "I was blinded by the sun", is an admission of guilt for careless driving, not a reason or mitigation for a collision.
Insurance Liability Youtuber Big Jobber calls that "Bungalow Behaviour" (ie not much upstairs).
I know that most here will agree on those; I'm cross that the delusional thinking exists.
If the government does want to fix the birthrate then they need to start working with positive male social influencers like Joey Swoll and family first women influencers to really push home the message that having a family is a good thing, having kids is a blessing, and whatever perceived sacrifices there are don't come close to the emotional rewards of having amazing children in your life everyday.
If male influencers want to influence the TFR then they should be encouraging stay at home dads who are eager to help with the chores, and not just the fun stuff like the cooking.
But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.
TFR still holding up in the poorest but most religious continent, Africa though.
How religious parents of child bearing age are is probably the biggest factor in TFR
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?
This is what Google tells me...
Country Tax Authority Staff Population % of Population --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UK HM Revenue & Customs ~70,000 ~70,000,000 ~0.10% USA Internal Revenue Service ~90,000 ~335,000,000 ~0.03% France Direction générale des Finances pub. ~95,000 ~65,000,000 ~0.15% Germany Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (+Länder) ~115,000 ~84,000,000 ~0.14% Canada Canada Revenue Agency ~59,000 ~40,000,000 ~0.15% Australia Australian Taxation Office ~19,000 ~26,000,000 ~0.07%
Worth noting that this doesn't include the US State's tax gathering staff, which are going to be quite significant.
Why do posters who rely on right wing news never spend 20 seconds checking their facts before getting angry?
A quick google of "did hmrc spend 11m furniture?" leads to:
No, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not spend £11 million on furniture. Recent news reports indicate that HMRC spent over £1 million on office chairs and other furniture over a three-year period. Specifically, figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request in 2024 revealed the following spending: Over £1 million on office chairs £59,000 on desks £16,000 on storage units The spending, which included an £852,000 deal with the seat firm Posturite starting in October 2023, has drawn criticism from groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, particularly as the purchases were made despite staff only being required to be in the office for a portion of the week. Other reports referencing £11 million relate to different government initiatives, such as funding for town and city centre recovery schemes or homelessness prevention programmes, not HMRC furniture.
Link to contract. Published last week, value £10.9m to a single supplier.
Single supplier is to be expected. Uniform styling in office furniture is the norm, especially with the use of open plan design. Also making sure that modular design stuff actually fits together with wiring ducts, etc. - think open plan cubicles. And key systems. And single point to go to for assembly and installation.
So not an objection per se.
That contact will include the equipment for HMRC's new Newcastle Office which is 9000 workers.
And 9000 Aeron chairs at full retail (yes cheaper, crappier chairs are available and will be inflicted on HMRC's staff) would cost £12 million at retail prices.
I guess one new large office could take a fair bit of the budget, although one might argue why exactly HMRC needs so many people, nearly 70k in total, given that most of us now do everything tax-related ourselves online.
HMRC doesn't just deal with individual tax returns.
True, but one in a thousand residents of a country working for the taxman?
Country Tax authority Staff Population % of population UK HM Revenue & Customs ~70,000 ~70 million ~0.10% USA Internal Revenue Service ~90,000 ~335 million ~0.03% France Direction générale des Finances publiques ~95,000 ~65 million ~0.15% Germany Bundeszentralamt für Steuern + Länder ~115,000 ~84 million ~0.14% Canada Canada Revenue Agency ~59,000 ~40 million ~0.15% Australia Australian Taxation Office ~19,000 ~26 million ~0.07%
Comments
I don't think the Andrew Tate generation are going to help with this.
Firstly, tariffs have led to everyday goods getting more expensive. This is a particular issue currently because it's the run up to Christmas, and it turns out that many things are meaningfully more expensive than last year.
Worse: because it is the low waged who are most likely to buy (say) clothes than come from Bangladesh, it is the low waged who are seeing the purchasing power hit the most.
Secondly, manufacturing employment is doing worse under Trump than Biden. Again, because tariffs. If you increase the cost of steel and energy for US auto makers, they respond by making cars in countries where steel and energy are cheaper. We did this in the 1980s, where tariffs were put on metals, and the result was a very minor improvement in a metals employment, matched by a much bigger decline in employment in industries which use those products.
After all, the UK is a net importer of EU goods, so it ought to be to the EU’s benefit. See also, the phyto-sanitary rules which impede straightforward trade of agricultural product.
Much of British economic malaise, it seems to me, is due to successive governments giving up on micro-economic reform. It’s become too cumbersome to “just do stuff”. Even the animal welfare reforms just announced - while perhaps welcome* on their own merits - may well have some negative economic second order effect.
*I am not anti-fox hunting, so I can’t sign up whole heartedly to these reforms.
Joining the Single Market makes a huge amount of economic sense. Joining a Customs Union does not.
After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.
Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.
Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.
I think there are lots of factors behind the declining birth rate, and it is a global phenomenon. But I do suspect that being much more ready to see children as a blessing not a burden and an investment not a cost would probably help.
The popularity of a customs union in current polling isn't I suspect really about a CU, so much as the unpopularity of Brexit. Freedom of movement would also open up the possibility of rejoining the single market, of course.
If Britain were to get involved in another big internal debate over the EU, and another big external negotiation over the same, then the prospect for making marginal gains evaporates. It's much harder to make marginal gains when you don't know the big picture environment you are working in.
But my point was that the cost to Britain of being outside the Customs Union is currently a lot larger than the headline "zero tariff, zero quota" trade deal would suggest. Britain has to work hard to make up for that headwind.
They have received enormous amounts of public money (hundreds of millions / billions) in recent decades, but have a fairly small active boating community as their own revenue base, who feel to an extent that canals are "ours", and aiui separable revenue generating assets have been hived off.
ThaT feels like private profit / public squalor again to me, but I'm not totally au fait with the detail so add a big pinch of salt. My particular angle is (obviously) around tow-paths all needing to be accessible and barrier-free as a quid pro quo for Government funding (like Scotland).
I'd have a law that makes towpaths at least public footpaths, and probably Restricted Byways or Bridleways (which is perhaps obvious as that is what towpaths were designed for ie boat horses), which then lets PROW law be used.
To do this properly, you need to ask which developed world countries have done the best at keeping TFRs up, and which have done the worst, and then ask what unites the highest and the lowest.
If you look at Europe in the 21st Century, only France has been anywhere near replacement level - it's been in the 1.7 to 2.0 range for most of the period.
Fertility rates are crashing everywhere, once the world hits 9 billion people it'll be a much longer wait to see if it reaches 10 bn
On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?
It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.
The religious also have more children than the non religious, being of faith is more likely to make you have children and early than being a rich homeowner
Where, though, is there a figure with the courage and integrity of FDR?
RIP
The lowest birth rates are in East Asia, with Korea bottom of the pile.
It’s only going in one direction, globally.
So Chris Rea has gone home, to our true home with many rooms.
For Christmas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0q5g3v02qjt
Nous sommes livrés à une solitude absolue. Personne ne peut nous parler et personne ne peut parler pour nous ; il faut nous en charger, chacun doit s’en charger lui-même.
https://x.com/shitbritishpics/status/2003120242705187166?s=61
What a year for,sleb deaths,
And having listened to a couple of Chris Rea songs today, I'm thinking "elevator music".
Nonetheless, RIP.
It's actually very rare for someone like me to interact with children - I'm either in the office, or at home, or doing activities that don't really lend themselves to kids. As we've discussed on PB, children simply do not play in the street or walk to school as they did in the past. I have much more exposure to my friends from all around the world travelling and drinking and having a wonderful time via instagram and whatsapp.
I think our highly insular domestic lives, along with travel and distance from family, are the primary reasons why it doesn't really occur to people to have kids. Watch this space though - one of my friends is pregnant, and another has a 3 month old. If my theory holds...
However the driver was still doing only 30mph in a 60 mph limit road when he approached that bend and was not on his phone or on drugs or drunk. I can see why the jury acquitted him therefore, though there may be a case to make all narrow single track country roads 10 to 20mph limits maximum that is not the law now
But I don't think it will make much difference. The drop in TFR is a worldwide phenomenon, even in places not noted for its Woke University professors like Russia and Iran.
Back in the 70s that was easy, back in the 90s we were able to do so but those graduating after me found it harder and post 2000 it’s got more and more impossible to buy a home big enough to have children in.
Until that problem is fixed many people are going to see having children as an impossible dream
I’ve not read it myself but did read this review article: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n21/david-runciman/are-we-doomed
Quite frankly I tend to be a bit sceptical of all the dismal almost Malthusian wailing on this topic. Something may turn up, things will change. However, like climate change the by the time you’ve really noticed it, there is almost very little you can do about it. Well happy Christmas and all that.
His brother was our village ice cream van man.
I guess the other elephant in the room here is that the world is going to shit and maybe some people don't want to bring children into that. Thinking of my children trying to survive in a world of rising temperatures, depleted natural resources and growing fascism is the only thing that makes me regret our choice.
I have (not very extreme) views on rural speed limits around 50mph on single carriageway roads, and 40mph on B-roads, and 30mph on single-track but it needs a commitment to investment, some enforcement and culture change. And a serious commitment to PROW improvement, but on that TBH they are ALL (except for Greens and Welshgov + Scotgov) arse-sitters.
And (husk off) the Tories would go "culture war" or have a patsy for the NFU / CLA (as eg Theresa Villiers), Reform would have their head in the default 1970s Tunbridge Wells garden shed, and the current Labour Government have lost their mojo and are too timid to drive it nationally as is required - and will do something mealy-mouthed that would defer to LHAs and therefore leave the bad places to stay bad (as they are now doing post Louise Haigh).
Action on single tracks would need to start somewhere like Scotland or Cornwall, where more people get killed.
But he was prolific and shifted load of LPs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Rea_discography
Russia has a whole infrastructure in support of third-world shitposters toxifying public debate.
Most of them want kids one day, but the prime reasons given for delaying having a family seem to be:
1) Cost of housing and insecurity of rentals.
2) Unwillingness to commit to relationships (primarily, but not exclusively by the lads).
3) The importance attached to becoming established in a career and thus being able to afford (1).
Did we note the death of Alfred Brendel in June?
We seems to live in remarkably culturally both diverse and separated communities.
The GP was at pains to point out that he would review it.
How religious parents of child bearing age are is probably the biggest factor in TFR
(Difficult to measure.)
You do know that times change and we live a far better life today despite all the problems we face
And why shouldn't more women go to university and have full time careers
Indeed our daughter in law did both and has three children, the youngest when she was 42
Bill Clinton made a rare mistake and blurted out the quiet part “but it would throw hundreds of thousands of lawyers out of work”.
No tax breaks for this, or subsidies for that. Tax rates for all kinds of income should be the same.
Politically impossible, of course, because everyone has their favourite tax break. (And everyone forgets that one man's tax break is another's burden.)
The "30 in a 60" fails the most basic teaching. It is a limit not a target, or a safe speed for a road. That's peppered through the entire Highway Code.
So there's zero basis for any Jury to reach that conclusion, and a Judge should point it out when any lawyer tries the argument. Equally with "there was not time to react when he went round the corner". That, like "I was blinded by the sun", is an admission of guilt for careless driving, not a reason or mitigation for a collision.
Insurance Liability Youtuber Big Jobber calls that "Bungalow Behaviour" (ie not much upstairs).
I know that most here will agree on those; I'm cross that the delusional thinking exists.
That song is utter shite, btw.