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.
Surely if the car driver was going too fast at 20-30mph so were the cyclists. They seem to have been riding insufficiently defensively.
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
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
No, TFR is dropping in Africa too, just from a higher base. This is particularly so in urban Africa.
Action on single tracks would need to start somewhere like Scotland or Cornwall, where more people get killed.
At least here in Scotland, the purpose of reduced speed limits is purely virtue signalling. If they actually solve a real problem it's just a coincidence.
My local council is imposing 20mph limits on over 90% of streets in the district next year. None of these have, as far a I can tell, any particular issue with higher than normal accident rates. The most visible result is likely to be a reduction in the frequency of bus services, the already spotty service that serves my village is supposedly going from every 40 minutes to hourly.
Action on single track roads? None. That 50mph B road with a terrifying blind S bend that regularly lands cars in a field? Nada.
It's all performative nonsense cooked up by unserious people.
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
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!
A remarkable proportion of OnlyFans pages are AI generated. My (18 year old) daughter tells me that one of her classmates has a Snapchat account where they pretend to be a 21 year old Korean student in San Francisco, and sell AI generated feet images to people for $50/time
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
I agree and its theses economic factors that can actually be changed. You just have to look at those who get their money young* to see that people still want children and will have them if they have a secure lifestyle.
*Lots of high level footballers are married with children before 25
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%
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Hello BigG. Well said. Just to follow up your comment the other day - my annual RNLI sub has just gone in.
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
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 he'd hit cyclists going the same way as him it would clearly be dangerous driving, as you should always drive at such a speed that you can stop in the distance you can see to be free. So hitting someone moving in the same direction as you is clearly that. But a head on collision is a bit of a judgment call. Unfortunately from that article we don't see much regarding his road positioning or the cyclists'
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 that were the whole picture, then a country which had fabulous job prospects, and subsidised housing for married couples with children would have a great TFR.
Sadly, Singapore's TFR remains mired at about 1.0.
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
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.
Again, as more mothers work full time so giving two incomes partly wasted as landlords just increase rent accordingly
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
I think the fact he managed to hit the cyclist and kill him is pretty good evidence he didn't leave enough space tbh. As Matt has explained, there's a bit more to the Highway Code than speed limits.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
For 45 days straight, a ground drone from Ukraine’s 3rd Assault Brigade held the line instead of infantry, suppressing movements with machine gun fire. Operated remotely from cover, the DevDroid TW 12.7 kept the position secure without a single loss.
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
Good for your daughter in law but most women don’t feel they can do it all like her
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Hello BigG. Well said. Just to follow up your comment the other day - my annual RNLI sub has just gone in.
Thank you so much for the donation
I know I talk about the RNLI and our son quite a bit, but his description of being called from his bed, with his colleagues, at 3.00am and be actually on the water within 25 minutes pulling a drowning young woman from the sea and taking her to the waiting ambulance was emotional, not least because she intended to drown but thanked him and his crew for saving her and apologised for them having to come to her rescue
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
Good for your daughter in law but most women don’t feel they can do it all like her
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.
was a plot point in the last great Sean Connery flick the Rock
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Hello BigG. Well said. Just to follow up your comment the other day - my annual RNLI sub has just gone in.
Thank you so much for the donation
I know I talk about the RNLI and our son quite a bit, but his description of being called from his bed, with his colleagues, at 3.00am and be actually on the water within 25 minutes pulling a drowning young woman from the sea and taking her to the waiting ambulance was emotional, not least because she intended to drown but thanked him and his crew for saving her and apologised for them having to come to her rescue
Oh, it's interesting to see how the other half live! (I actually prefer an annual sub - that way they can rely on it. Rather than a more erratic donation.)
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that
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
No, TFR is dropping in Africa too, just from a higher base. This is particularly so in urban Africa.
Again, amongst secular urban Africans, it is holding up especially amongst religious rural Africans
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
I think the fact he managed to hit the cyclist and kill him is pretty good evidence he didn't leave enough space tbh. As Matt has explained, there's a bit more to the Highway Code than speed limits.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
No it isn’t, if a motorcyclist was driving at 90mph and was hit and killed by a driver driving at the speed limit and not drink, on his phone or doing an illegal manoeuvre the driver would still be acquitted. The cyclist in front of the one killed also got through the gap the driver gave.
I do agree though he might have been convicted on not leaving a more than 2.5m gap but a civil case might find him culpable on that where a lower threshold of guilt is needed
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
No, TFR is dropping in Africa too, just from a higher base. This is particularly so in urban Africa.
Again, amongst more wealthy urban Africans, it is holding up especially amongst religious impoverished Africans
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.)
When I was young, flattening taxes like that was impossible, evil etc. Apparently.
Then the Baltics states (among others) did this, in their post Soviet rebuild.
The it became its impossible, evil etc for “developed counties” to do this
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
That's an interesting contrast - thanks.
My view is that the speed limit is essentially irrelevant except as a cap, and that overwhelming weight is placed on the road conditions from visibility through to weather and surface conditions.
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
No, TFR is dropping in Africa too, just from a higher base. This is particularly so in urban Africa.
Again, amongst more wealthy urban Africans, it is holding up especially amongst religious impoverished Africans
fixed
Not entirely true either. a wealthy Christian evangelical couple would have more children on average than an atheist poor couple even in Africa
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Hello BigG. Well said. Just to follow up your comment the other day - my annual RNLI sub has just gone in.
Thank you so much for the donation
I know I talk about the RNLI and our son quite a bit, but his description of being called from his bed, with his colleagues, at 3.00am and be actually on the water within 25 minutes pulling a drowning young woman from the sea and taking her to the waiting ambulance was emotional, not least because she intended to drown but thanked him and his crew for saving her and apologised for them having to come to her rescue
I row on the Tideway (tidal portion of the Thames).
We sometimes have a bit of a shout at the RNLI - it’s improved since their volunteers got the message about being a bit more careful with speed during practices…
But we always make sure they get drunk under table, if they come in the pub.
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
I think the fact he managed to hit the cyclist and kill him is pretty good evidence he didn't leave enough space tbh. As Matt has explained, there's a bit more to the Highway Code than speed limits.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
No it isn’t, if a motorcyclist was driving at 90mph and was hit and killed by a driver driving at the speed limit and not drink, on his phone or doing an illegal manoeuvre the driver would still be acquitted. The cyclist in front of the one killed also got through the gap the driver gave.
I do agree though he might have been convicted on not leaving a more than 2.5m gap but a civil case might find him culpable on that where a lower threshold of guilt is needed
In that example, both the driver and the motorcyclist might be driving dangerously.
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that
You make my case for me
Subservience to Westminster is your demand
It was thanks to Westminster the Scots and Welsh even have a devolved parliament
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
I think the fact he managed to hit the cyclist and kill him is pretty good evidence he didn't leave enough space tbh. As Matt has explained, there's a bit more to the Highway Code than speed limits.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
No it isn’t, if a motorcyclist was driving at 90mph and was hit and killed by a driver driving at the speed limit and not drink, on his phone or doing an illegal manoeuvre the driver would still be acquitted. The cyclist in front of the one killed also got through the gap the driver gave.
I do agree though he might have been convicted on not leaving a more than 2.5m gap but a civil case might find him culpable on that where a lower threshold of guilt is needed
In that example, both the driver and the motorcyclist might be driving dangerously.
The driver clearly wasn’t if not drunk or on drugs, not on his phone, not speeding and not doing an illegal or clearly unsafe manoeuvre
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.
I would tend to think that the anti-child crap is an attempt to justify/rationalise the lack of children, rather than a cause of it, though it could make it harder to increase the number of children again.
My daughter was born when I was 21. I started my first (non-temporary) job on the day she was due to be born, and she ended up being born seven days later. So in economic terms it was a shambles, and I wasn't at all ready.
We delayed having a second child until her mother was established in a job, but that relationship broke down before that happened.
With my second wife, we also decided to do the sensible thing and wait until we were "ready", but with one thing or another that didn't happen, and by the time we realised that the perfect time wasn't going to arrive we turned out to be too old. So one child for me (I always thought I'd have three) and one step-child for my wife.
I think the idea that people should only have children when they're "ready" is pernicious and needs confronting. The same as the justification for the two-child benefit limit, that people should only have children that they can afford. You are never ready to have a child, and a child can consume a limitless sum of money. It's a massive thing, but you learn as you go along, and in terms of being "ready" the most relevant factor is that health outcomes are much better for mother and baby if the mother is in her twenties (and the same for the Dad, to a lesser extent).
Find someone to have children with, and then have children*. You'll work everything out.
I don't regret having a child when I wasn't ready with, it turns out, the wrong person, but I do regret waiting until we were ready and missing out on having children once I had found the right person.
* Or don't have children if you don't want to, but don't try to come up with some grand justification about saving the planet, or whatever, just to do down people who do have children.
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
I think the fact he managed to hit the cyclist and kill him is pretty good evidence he didn't leave enough space tbh. As Matt has explained, there's a bit more to the Highway Code than speed limits.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
I don't thing we've been told anything about road placement or whether it was a left hand or right hand bend. Two cyclists managed to avoid the car, two didn't, it is quite possible they were riding too far over
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that
You make my case for me
Subservience to Westminster is your demand
It was thanks to Westminster the Scots and Welsh even have a devolved parliament
But not a Federal one. A very big difference, and entirely making BigG's point.
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
That's an interesting contrast - thanks.
My view is that the speed limit is essentially irrelevant except as a cap, and that overwhelming weight is placed on the road conditions from visibility through to weather and surface conditions.
Regardless, it's a good to debate these things.
In which case we need far more 20 and 30mph limit roads, especially round bends or single track rural lanes and a clear 30 or even 20mph limit in the Highway Code if poor weather or poor surface conditions or we will be convicting drivers of at least careless driving all the time
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that
You make my case for me
Subservience to Westminster is your demand
It was thanks to Westminster the Scots and Welsh even have a devolved parliament
But not a Federal one. A very big difference, and entirely making BigG's point.
Essentially it is Federal one in all but name, even if you want devomax, outside England. Only New Labour’s refusal to create an English parliament alongside the Scottish amd Welsh parliaments and Stormont meant we do not have a fully Federal system alongside the Westminster parliament
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
They'll go to heaven by either consorting with prostitutes or sleeping with under-age girls?
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
I think the fact he managed to hit the cyclist and kill him is pretty good evidence he didn't leave enough space tbh. As Matt has explained, there's a bit more to the Highway Code than speed limits.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
I don't thing we've been told anything about road placement or whether it was a left hand or right hand bend. Two cyclists managed to avoid the car, two didn't, it is quite possible they were riding too far over
My interpretation of the article (and this might be wrong given the source) is that the driver gave the cyclists at most 1.1m at 30mph. That's going to be more than enough for a significant settlement, from experience.
There are umpteen examples in the Highway Code about vulnerable road users, space, slowing down. Basically, don't drive in such a way that a mistake from either party could end in serious injury. Worth remembering that the bar is much lower for this kind of claim and so, increasingly, it's the form of justice cyclists seek after an incident like this.
The defensive cycling is a good point. I plonk myself in the middle of the lane (road on single track) when there is oncoming traffic and the gap is too small, as advised in the Code. Don't give them the option.
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.
My first wife was very into keeping score. A terrible way to live. She used to allege that I was washing dishes slowly to avoid doing other chores.
With my second wife I know that she wants to do things to make my life better and vice versa, so there's no need to keep score.
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.
Yes and he slowed down to half the limit, he was not going anywhere near 60mph when he approached that corner bend. So I disagree, the jury had grounds to acquit him given there was no 20mph limit on that narrow single track road
I think the fact he managed to hit the cyclist and kill him is pretty good evidence he didn't leave enough space tbh. As Matt has explained, there's a bit more to the Highway Code than speed limits.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
I don't thing we've been told anything about road placement or whether it was a left hand or right hand bend. Two cyclists managed to avoid the car, two didn't, it is quite possible they were riding too far over
My interpretation of the article (and this might be wrong given the source) is that the driver gave the cyclists at most 1.1m at 30mph. That's going to be more than enough for a significant settlement, from experience.
There are umpteen examples in the Highway Code about vulnerable road users, space, slowing down. Basically, don't drive in such a way that a mistake from either party could end in serious injury. Worth remembering that the bar is much lower for this kind of claim and so, increasingly, it's the form of justice cyclists seek after an incident like this.
The defensive cycling is a good point. I plonk myself in the middle of the lane (road on single track) when there is oncoming traffic and the gap is too small, as advised in the Code. Don't give them the option.
In a 60mph limit road ‘slowing down’, could be anything from 55mph to 15mph, totally unclear and a dream for lawyers to argue on.
Gaps and recommended space should also be far more specific recommendations in the highway code
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
As an aside, I know plenty of parents who will admit -after a few drinks- that while they love their child/children very much, they wouldn't have them if they lived their life again.
Personally, I don't feel that way about my kids, but I sure do about at least three quarters of our animals. (We have two dogs and four cats. I think I'd keep one cat, tops.)
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
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 only example we have, as has been pointed out many times before, is that of Turkey.
Now not surprisingly I have spent a lot of time looking at this deal and also at the way in which it was developed. Contrary to what some of the more vehmently anti-EU might believe, the EU did not set out to screw Turkey with the deal. They actually wanted a deal that worked well for both sides as that was to their economic advantage. Unfortunately the side effect of screwing Turley's ability to have trade deals with third party countries (since there was no point anyone negotiating with them if they already had access to Turkish markets via the EU) was an unforeseen consequence rather than by design. There is no easy way to avoid this consequence as it would mean the EU renogotiating all the FTAs it has with third party countries so as to include Turkey.
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
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.
My first wife was very into keeping score. A terrible way to live. She used to allege that I was washing dishes slowly to avoid doing other chores.
With my second wife I know that she wants to do things to make my life better and vice versa, so there's no need to keep score.
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
Ahem: in Phase 1 it was also used in tens of millions of pocket calculators.
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
4. Modules, engineers realised that by laser cutting panels in half they reduced electrical resistance in the cells. This means the panel runs cooler and produces more power. Bifacial modules then emerged, instead of plastic backing. Panels were made with glass front and back, this means panels also collect energy bouncing from the ground below the panel which again boosts the panel output in operation.
These gains all compound to make the panels 90% cheaper over the course of 10 years.
Chinese manufacturers are now looking at perovskites as a paradigm switch. It’s essentially a superior crystal to silicon for absorbing light. You can make them from liquid chemistry and you can print them.
Silicon is great at capturing red and IR light perovskites can be tuned for blue spectrum. You can then go tandem and pair both silicon and perovskites in the same modules.
Now panels are cheap, because they’re simple things to make. They cost around $0.10/watt ex factory. A solar installation costs around $3.00/watt and the panels themselves are now a very small part of the cost of a solar installation which is dominated by land, labour and structures.
Much of industry is like this. If you can consolidate manufacturing under one roof, you learn all the improvement opportunities much faster, because you just see more stuff.
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
Hey: I've done my bit, don't go blaming me.
I specifically didn’t, it was your fellow atheists as a whole I blamed. At the time Revelation was written the only Christians in the world were in Israel and Palestine and Jordan
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
Also, I'm agnostic, not atheist.
I admit, I'm on the militant, prosthelitizing hard line wing of agnostics.
But I'm definitely on the agnostic rather than atheist side of the fence.
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.
My first wife was very into keeping score. A terrible way to live. She used to allege that I was washing dishes slowly to avoid doing other chores.
With my second wife I know that she wants to do things to make my life better and vice versa, so there's no need to keep score.
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
Also, I'm agnostic, not atheist.
I admit, I'm on the militant, prosthelitizing hard line wing of agnostics.
But I'm definitely on the agnostic rather than atheist side of the fence.
Hedging your bets without clearly committing to one side or the other, as usual RCS
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
I'm not sure footballers always make the best role models but just to double check are we talking Gabriel or Igor here?
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
Little known fact - Disney were using solar panels to power some of their theme park rides from the early 1980s onwards.
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.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
It's a fucking disgrace. HMRC staff, indeed all civil servants, don't need office furniture or equipment. They should stand upright with clipboard and pen in hand, get on with their job, and stop whingeing.
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.
My first wife was very into keeping score. A terrible way to live. She used to allege that I was washing dishes slowly to avoid doing other chores.
With my second wife I know that she wants to do things to make my life better and vice versa, so there's no need to keep score.
Were you washing dishes slowly?
I haven't come across an objective measure of dish-washing speed to determine that. But I do know that I was motivated to wash the dishes as quickly as possible, so that I could do more enjoyable things after finishing household chores.
But my wife was determined to find an explanation that would absolve herself of any guilt she might otherwise feel for not doing household chores as well or quickly as she thought she should. So it had to be my fault. And since I was doing a chore she had to be imaginative when it came to the mechanism.
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
Infant mortality is another.
It is but even in the UK Christian evangelicals and Muslims and still to an extent Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jew parents have more children on average than atheist parents do
Which is weird, when you think about it.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
The hope is though for religious parents their children will go to heaven if they follow God, Jesus, Muhammad etc
Well, if Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 are correct, then only 144,000 people are going to heaven over the entire history of humankind.
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Jesus made clear that all who trust and follow him go to heaven. As atheists like you are largely responsible for declining fertility a bit more humility would be a good thing, even if you yourself have produced some heirs
Also, I'm agnostic, not atheist.
I admit, I'm on the militant, prosthelitizing hard line wing of agnostics.
But I'm definitely on the agnostic rather than atheist side of the fence.
Hedging your bets without clearly committing to one side or the other, as usual RCS
Was it Micahael Palin who said he was an Agnostic but with serious doubts?
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.
My first wife was very into keeping score. A terrible way to live. She used to allege that I was washing dishes slowly to avoid doing other chores.
With my second wife I know that she wants to do things to make my life better and vice versa, so there's no need to keep score.
Were you washing dishes slowly?
That's what I wanna know! 😂
I mean, I might be slow at washing dishes. Being hauled out of your sleeping bag in the middle of the night to make sure the scouts dishes are all washed and dried properly would encourage you to be careful about doing a proper job first time.
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.
garbage, it is impossible to get goods now from companies in europe without having to pay VAT , handling , customs and feck knows what charges. Most small companies have given up.
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
FFS , I wouold rather stay under the yoke than vote for those lunatics. No wonder Scotland is such a shithole nowadays.
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.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
We are about to be descended upon by Younger Son and his family, which includes two teenage girls, 19 and 18, Could be interesting to hear what they say, although as one is at an Aussie uni and the other planning to join her in 2027 they may not be representative. Eldest Granddaughter, our daughter's daughter, is 36 and has no intention of having a family. Her long-term boyfriend seems happy with the situation. So far, from our three children, we've one great-grandchild. But we live in hope!
In contrast my maternal grandparents had 20 grandchildren.
As an aside, I know plenty of parents who will admit -after a few drinks- that while they love their child/children very much, they wouldn't have them if they lived their life again.
Personally, I don't feel that way about my kids, but I sure do about at least three quarters of our animals. (We have two dogs and four cats. I think I'd keep one cat, tops.)
Personally I don't feel that way about my kids either but I sure do about at least three quarters of other people's kids.
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.
As an aside, I know plenty of parents who will admit -after a few drinks- that while they love their child/children very much, they wouldn't have them if they lived their life again.
Personally, I don't feel that way about my kids, but I sure do about at least three quarters of our animals. (We have two dogs and four cats. I think I'd keep one cat, tops.)
Personally I don't feel that way about my kids either but I sure do about at least three quarters of other people's kids.
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.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
I was chatting with my boys over the weekend. Both will be voting Green, as will Fox jrs partner. They are turned off Starmer and the Tories particularly by the Culture war stuff. Fox jr and his other half (female University staff...) interestingly arent planning to vote YP despite being in one of the few YP held seats (Leicester South). Too shambolic it seems. Fox jr2 is really put off by the Transphobia stuff, as his best friend and former flatmate is Trans. Another one for Zack.
No grandchildren yet, but both keen as are their partners.
I think I’ve just driven through 3 different Greenwich LTNs on one trip, thanks to Google maps and unclear signage. I should know better given I’m a relatively local resident.
£160 x 3, less 50% early payment discount: £240. I was picking up a wheelbarrow from B&Q that cost £75.
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.
That is indeed, a really bad idea. People in their 20's are quite capable of taking responsibility for their actions.
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.
My first wife was very into keeping score. A terrible way to live. She used to allege that I was washing dishes slowly to avoid doing other chores.
With my second wife I know that she wants to do things to make my life better and vice versa, so there's no need to keep score.
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 blame the internet
It used to be said that the best way to watch Match of the Day was over your girl-friends shoulders.
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.
Especially given the fact that in almost every part of the Developed and Developing world, the best time to be born was yesterday.
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
Little known fact - Disney were using solar panels to power some of their theme park rides from the early 1980s onwards.
Jimmy Carter fitted solar pannels on the White House Roof. Reagan removed them.
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
My Dad was born in 1946. For the first few months his parents lived with my Dad's grandparents. Then my Dad's Dad returned to university to finish his degree, and they rented a cottage on a farm outside Bristol. My Grandad remembered having to patch the walls regularly after mice chewed their way through.
They weren't in a stable position. They didn't own a home. They just got on with it. Now my Dad owns a house worth £2m, so it didn't do him any harm, and I don't think his upbringing was why he failed to complete his Cambridge Maths PhD.
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.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
I was chatting with my boys over the weekend. Both will be voting Green, as will Fox jrs partner. They are turned off Starmer and the Tories particularly by the Culture war stuff. Fox jr and his other half (female University staff...) interestingly arent planning to vote YP despite being in one of the few YP held seats (Leicester South). Too shambolic it seems. Fox jr2 is really put off by the Transphobia stuff, as his best friend and former flatmate is Trans. Another one for Zack.
No grandchildren yet, but both keen as are their partners.
I would happily vote Labour or Lib Dem, if it were a choose between them and the Green Party, who are essentially communists.
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.
Especially given the fact that in almost every part of the Developed and Developing world, the best time to be born was yesterday.
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in the next few decades?
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.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
I have two girls (13, 19) and a boy (16) and it is quite notable the difference in their interests/concerns. The girls are ultra woke, the boy is a bit of an edgelord.
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that
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.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
I was chatting with my boys over the weekend. Both will be voting Green, as will Fox jrs partner. They are turned off Starmer and the Tories particularly by the Culture war stuff. Fox jr and his other half (female University staff...) interestingly arent planning to vote YP despite being in one of the few YP held seats (Leicester South). Too shambolic it seems. Fox jr2 is really put off by the Transphobia stuff, as his best friend and former flatmate is Trans. Another one for Zack.
No grandchildren yet, but both keen as are their partners.
I would happily vote Labour or Lib Dem, if it were a choose between them and the Green Party, who are essentially communists.
If we ever have a County Council election again I will happily vote Green. He's a good guy and get's things done.
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
Drop in constituency vote is 13% for SNP versus around 6% for Lab. The problem is Labour are starting from so far back, they were more than 10k behind in quite a number of seats . Could easily end up with a string of near misses, less than 2k in it, or they could gain 5%, get more competitive and land a score of seats in central Scotland. Time will tell, I expect Reform to have the burners put on them come April
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.
Especially given the fact that in almost every part of the Developed and Developing world, the best time to be born was yesterday.
The Greens are everything the young (particularly girls) wanted Labour to be. It's what the radio 4 prog was about. Streeting knows what he's doing. You can't be a lefti leaning Party and be an idealogical vacuum at the same time. Starmer doesn't seem to get it
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
My Dad was born in 1946. For the first few months his parents lived with my Dad's grandparents. Then my Dad's Dad returned to university to finish his degree, and they rented a cottage on a farm outside Bristol. My Grandad remembered having to patch the walls regularly after mice chewed their way through.
They weren't in a stable position. They didn't own a home. They just got on with it. Now my Dad owns a house worth £2m, so it didn't do him any harm, and I don't think his upbringing was why he failed to complete his Cambridge Maths PhD.
Being in a stable position helps. Look at Mary and Joseph!
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
Your focus on Scottish politics is entirely coloured by your fear of an Independence referendum and counting the numbers for an anti independence majority
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
Starmer has made clear he will refuse indyref2 as has Farage. We are a United Kingdom and the devolved parliaments are subordinate to Westminster. Nats were allowed one independence referendum, Madrid refused the Catalan nationalist government even that
You make my case for me
Subservience to Westminster is your demand
It was thanks to Westminster the Scots and Welsh even have a devolved parliament
How generous of them to allow us some pocket money. Similar to what you would do with a 10 year old. TWAT.
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.
Especially given the fact that in almost every part of the Developed and Developing world, the best time to be born was yesterday.
No, too close to Christmas.
Eldest Grandson was born a week before Christmas. When he was small his mother always insisted that no decorations (etc) were put up until AFTER his birthday. He's now married and his wife puts up the decorations on or about Dec 1st!
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
Drop in constituency vote is 13% for SNP versus around 6% for Lab. The problem is Labour are starting from so far back, they were more than 10k behind in quite a number of seats . Could easily end up with a string of near misses, less than 2k in it, or they could gain 5%, get more competitive and land a score of seats in central Scotland. Time will tell, I expect Reform to have the burners put on them come April
Er, 'burners' - the weed-burning kind or the Concorde reheat kind, please?
The Greens are everything the young (particularly girls) wanted Labour to be. It's what the radio 4 prog was about. Streeting knows what he's doing. You can't be a lefti leaning Party and be an idealogical vacuum at the same time. Starmer doesn't seem to get it
A party as left wing as the Greens cannot win a national election in a democracy. That is what any Labour leader will understand. Support for the Green Party falls away sharply, with voters aged over 30.
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.
I suspect Max is a 40 something going on 80. Theyve just had a really interesting prog on radio 4 about GenZ girls and their politics and how their social concerns are greater than their male equivalents which is why they are big fans of Zack and Sultana and they care about immigrants and Gaza. It was like an oasis in a desert and quite uplifting.
I have two girls (13, 19) and a boy (16) and it is quite notable the difference in their interests/concerns. The girls are ultra woke, the boy is a bit of an edgelord.
On the other hand my 18 year old son is ultra woke and my 12 year old daughter is showing proto-Thatcherite tendencies.
For 45 days straight, a ground drone from Ukraine’s 3rd Assault Brigade held the line instead of infantry, suppressing movements with machine gun fire. Operated remotely from cover, the DevDroid TW 12.7 kept the position secure without a single loss.
I think I’ve just driven through 3 different Greenwich LTNs on one trip, thanks to Google maps and unclear signage. I should know better given I’m a relatively local resident.
£160 x 3, less 50% early payment discount: £240. I was picking up a wheelbarrow from B&Q that cost £75.
Ouch, LTNs are a bastard. I'm not against them in theory. But that red circle sign with the car and motorbike in it is far too subtle for something that could cost you £80, and it should be mandatory for any mapping software to know the location of LTNs. Even if you see the sign, it can be impossible to find your way out of the warren of side streets as the satnav keeps leading you back to the place you can't go through! One of those things that makes you so angry and frustrated that you briefly know how it feels to be a Reform voter.
Comments
It is somewhat arrogant for a right wing English conservative to do everything to influence the Scots against self determination , a fierce and proud nation
Despite your claim labour will do ok in Scotland next May, I expect a SNP government and with support of the greens a possible pro indpendence majority
Certainly, why should the Scots and Welsh be dictated to by a Westminster government, especially as inept and painful as Starmer and Reeves's labour
My local council is imposing 20mph limits on over 90% of streets in the district next year. None of these have, as far a I can tell, any particular issue with higher than normal accident rates. The most visible result is likely to be a reduction in the frequency of bus services, the already spotty service that serves my village is supposedly going from every 40 minutes to hourly.
Action on single track roads? None. That 50mph B road with a terrifying blind S bend that regularly lands cars in a field? Nada.
It's all performative nonsense cooked up by unserious people.
*Lots of high level footballers are married with children before 25
Sadly, Singapore's TFR remains mired at about 1.0.
Because atheist parents know their kids won't be going to hell. While it has to be a constant worry for the more religiously minded.
Hopefully the family rinse him (and the insurer) in civil court.
https://t.me/noel_reports/38884
Robotic warfare.
For 45 days straight, a ground drone from Ukraine’s 3rd Assault Brigade held the line instead of infantry, suppressing movements with machine gun fire. Operated remotely from cover, the DevDroid TW 12.7 kept the position secure without a single loss.
I know I talk about the RNLI and our son quite a bit, but his description of being called from his bed, with his colleagues, at 3.00am and be actually on the water within 25 minutes pulling a drowning young woman from the sea and taking her to the waiting ambulance was emotional, not least because she intended to drown but thanked him and his crew for saving her and apologised for them having to come to her rescue
Subservience to Westminster is your demand
I do agree though he might have been convicted on not leaving a more than 2.5m gap but a civil case might find him culpable on that where a lower threshold of guilt is needed
Then the Baltics states (among others) did this, in their post Soviet rebuild.
The it became its impossible, evil etc for “developed counties” to do this
My view is that the speed limit is essentially irrelevant except as a cap, and that overwhelming weight is placed on the road conditions from visibility through to weather and surface conditions.
Regardless, it's a good to debate these things.
We sometimes have a bit of a shout at the RNLI - it’s improved since their volunteers got the message about being a bit more careful with speed during practices…
But we always make sure they get drunk under table, if they come in the pub.
My daughter was born when I was 21. I started my first (non-temporary) job on the day she was due to be born, and she ended up being born seven days later. So in economic terms it was a shambles, and I wasn't at all ready.
We delayed having a second child until her mother was established in a job, but that relationship broke down before that happened.
With my second wife, we also decided to do the sensible thing and wait until we were "ready", but with one thing or another that didn't happen, and by the time we realised that the perfect time wasn't going to arrive we turned out to be too old. So one child for me (I always thought I'd have three) and one step-child for my wife.
I think the idea that people should only have children when they're "ready" is pernicious and needs confronting. The same as the justification for the two-child benefit limit, that people should only have children that they can afford. You are never ready to have a child, and a child can consume a limitless sum of money. It's a massive thing, but you learn as you go along, and in terms of being "ready" the most relevant factor is that health outcomes are much better for mother and baby if the mother is in her twenties (and the same for the Dad, to a lesser extent).
Find someone to have children with, and then have children*. You'll work everything out.
I don't regret having a child when I wasn't ready with, it turns out, the wrong person, but I do regret waiting until we were ready and missing out on having children once I had found the right person.
* Or don't have children if you don't want to, but don't try to come up with some grand justification about saving the planet, or whatever, just to do down people who do have children.
Heaven has a rather generous door policy.
There are umpteen examples in the Highway Code about vulnerable road users, space, slowing down. Basically, don't drive in such a way that a mistake from either party could end in serious injury. Worth remembering that the bar is much lower for this kind of claim and so, increasingly, it's the form of justice cyclists seek after an incident like this.
The defensive cycling is a good point. I plonk myself in the middle of the lane (road on single track) when there is oncoming traffic and the gap is too small, as advised in the Code. Don't give them the option.
With my second wife I know that she wants to do things to make my life better and vice versa, so there's no need to keep score.
Gaps and recommended space should also be far more specific recommendations in the highway code
So, statistically, the chance don't look good.
Personally, I don't feel that way about my kids, but I sure do about at least three quarters of our animals. (We have two dogs and four cats. I think I'd keep one cat, tops.)
Now not surprisingly I have spent a lot of time looking at this deal and also at the way in which it was developed. Contrary to what some of the more vehmently anti-EU might believe, the EU did not set out to screw Turkey with the deal. They actually wanted a deal that worked well for both sides as that was to their economic advantage. Unfortunately the side effect of screwing Turley's ability to have trade deals with third party countries (since there was no point anyone negotiating with them if they already had access to Turkish markets via the EU) was an unforeseen consequence rather than by design. There is no easy way to avoid this consequence as it would mean the EU renogotiating all the FTAs it has with third party countries so as to include Turkey.
,I>How did solar get cheap?
Phase 1: 1950-1990s - NASA
Solar was invented in the US by Bell labs and pretty much only used by NASA who needed something very lightweight to power their space assets.
Phase 2: 2000 - Energiewind
The German government passed a law where it guaranteed that if you put solar panels on your roof the German government would pay you a high feed in tariff. Demand exploded.
Phase 3: 2005 - 2015 - China
In Europe German manufacturers could not meet their demand at home and Chinese entrepreneurs saw this fixed arbitrage opportunity and went all in. Chinese companies like Suntech took on huge government loans and built vast factories. Spain and Italy joined Germany with solar subsidies. Because of the price fixing in Europe the market arbitrage held as the solar cell manufacturing output in China exploded.
Phase 4 2015-2025 - Swanson’s Law
Once the big Chinese gigafactories were built, Swanson’s Law kicked in. This is the learning curve where manufacturers compound marginal gains and accumulate 1,000s of solutions to solved problems.
1. Ingots, originally they grew small Si crystals this was a slow batch process. Later they used continuous Czochralski pulling where you refill the crucible whilst the machine is still running. Saving hours of cooldown per batch. They also learnt how to grow huge single crystals that were 2-3 meters long.
2. Wafers, originally they sliced the crystals into wafers using saws. This was slow and turned 40% of the Si crystal into sawdust (kerf loss). The fix was diamond wire cutting, the wire was razor sharp, fast, much thinner than the saw, easier to keep clean and far less wasteful (4% kerf loss). Wafer costs plummeted.
3. Cells, you have to print silver lines on the back of the wafer to collect electricity. Over 15 years silver printing resolution improved and silver use was reduced by 70% whilst also blocking less sunlight. The mirror backing used to be aluminium which captured some solar energy as heat and was lost, so they added a dielectric passivation layer that captured more photons and improved cell conversion efficiency without changing materials...
Bifacial modules then emerged, instead of plastic backing. Panels were made with glass front and back, this means panels also collect energy bouncing from the ground below the panel which again boosts the panel output in operation.
These gains all compound to make the panels 90% cheaper over the course of 10 years.
Chinese manufacturers are now looking at perovskites as a paradigm switch. It’s essentially a superior crystal to silicon for absorbing light. You can make them from liquid chemistry and you can print them.
Silicon is great at capturing red and IR light perovskites can be tuned for blue spectrum.
You can then go tandem and pair both silicon and perovskites in the same modules.
Now panels are cheap, because they’re simple things to make. They cost around $0.10/watt ex factory. A solar installation costs around $3.00/watt and the panels themselves are now a very small part of the cost of a solar installation which is dominated by land, labour and structures.
Much of industry is like this. If you can consolidate manufacturing under one roof, you learn all the improvement opportunities much faster, because you just see more stuff.
https://x.com/Object_Zero_/status/2002582786058625245
I admit, I'm on the militant, prosthelitizing hard line wing of agnostics.
But I'm definitely on the agnostic rather than atheist side of the fence.
https://x.com/i/status/2003113885659017542
Ref 28%
Con 20%
Lab 18%
Grn 15%
LD 12%
https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics
But my wife was determined to find an explanation that would absolve herself of any guilt she might otherwise feel for not doing household chores as well or quickly as she thought she should. So it had to be my fault. And since I was doing a chore she had to be imaginative when it came to the mechanism.
Eldest Granddaughter, our daughter's daughter, is 36 and has no intention of having a family. Her long-term boyfriend seems happy with the situation.
So far, from our three children, we've one great-grandchild. But we live in hope!
In contrast my maternal grandparents had 20 grandchildren.
You kinda like your own...
No grandchildren yet, but both keen as are their partners.
£160 x 3, less 50% early payment discount: £240. I was picking up a wheelbarrow from B&Q that cost £75.
They weren't in a stable position. They didn't own a home. They just got on with it. Now my Dad owns a house worth £2m, so it didn't do him any harm, and I don't think his upbringing was why he failed to complete his Cambridge Maths PhD.
He's now married and his wife puts up the decorations on or about Dec 1st!
Can I have one?