Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
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
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.
I hope like me you are gently guiding them both to the mushy centrist dad worldview.
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.
At 3, 1 and 0 happily we don't have to worry about that yet! I do think this generation is going to be very anti-clanker.
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!
Proof that your wife will never love you like your mum does.
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.
How did it reload? Can I have one?
I'll ask my younger son. He sells military drones.
Fox jr 2 got quite a nice 4 figure bonus from his advertising company, and by the sound of it a very boozy traditional company party. Not bad for his first proper job (he has done various outher minor jobs at university).
It sounds as if "London is back". I think rising advertising profitability is a reasonably good leading indicator of economic recovery.
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
The problem for Slab is that they are seen to be tied to the actions of Reeves and Starmer, both of whom are being proved to be useless. The SNP had a Yousless FM, and he was fairly swiftly punted, by the Greens (!) of all people.
Mr Swinney is seen as a more capable pair of hands when viewed up against Labour. That's not to say a lot of people don't want change, it is in part that the options available are poor
Blame WFP, cuts, tax rises on business, tax rises on everybody from Labour, the backdrop is not good. Which is why I think we are looking at another SNP government of some description (as things stand)
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
Not at all.
That's regular agnostics.
I'm on the prostheleyzing wing of agnoticism. We hate the wishy washy regular agnostics. They're worse than believers and atheists in our eyes.
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.
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!
Proof that your wife will never love you like your mum does.
Sadly, his Mum is dead. MND. The discussions could have been 'interesting', though.
Although, to conflate issues discussed earlier, whether he'd have been able to afford his house without his share of his mother's life insurance........
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.
Malcolm, in my experience any 10 year old would be grossly insulted if it was suggested if they were as irresponsible with money and indeed pretty much anything else as the Holyrood government. The level of governance and competence there is much more akin to pre-school.
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.
I hope like me you are gently guiding them both to the mushy centrist dad worldview.
They’re getting there. Need to guard against overshoot though.
After my LTN experience today I’m off to join the taxpayers alliance.
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
Women have options and can say no. That's a big change. I don't think the way forward is to make it so that women don't have options and can't say no. We have to find ways to help them (and the prospective dads) to say yes.
That means coming up with a whole bunch of new ideas - making it easier for women to start careers in their thirties *after* having children, for example.
But also, as a culture, simply valuing children instead of seeing them as a problem.
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.
At 3, 1 and 0 happily we don't have to worry about that yet! I do think this generation is going to be very anti-clanker.
So far as my own 4 adult children in their 20s are concerned, their political outlook seems to shift quite a bit as they hit the 40% tax band.
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?
Lol I meant have heat put on them. No weed or phones involved
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.
Having a young kid, particularly if money is tight, is extremely stressful and not all of us are our best selves at that moment.
It's hard sometimes to see through your own misery and discomfort and be empathetic to the needs of a partner.
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?
Lol I meant have heat put on them. No weed or phones involved
Yep, the non-phone weed-burner the gardeners use. Edit: metaphorically, I hasten to add! Thanks.
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's nothing. My Mum calls me a 50 year-old man-child all the 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.
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.
When I look at my next GE vote and my local situation is such that the Greens are in with a genuine shout.
Huddersfield is Labour 1st, Green 2nd at the moment and has the lowest required swing nationality for the Greens, including Bristol seats. But it is not a city central seat where one couldn't possibly imagine Reform coming through the middle. Choose wrong, split the vote and we get a Reform MP, simple as.
Labour, as incumbent, will get some benefit of the doubt with me, but if they are dead as dodos come GE time, I'm perfectly prepared to go Green to defeat Reform. The likely local candidate is excellent and a local councillor I already vote for, so despite Zac, despite knowing I'm aligning myself with the Gaza vote, I will go there if I have to.
Did I avoid voting Corbyn Labour at any election - local, national, European - to end up here? Possibly not, but unless the Greens end up challenging for Downing Street, I think it would be a considerably different circumstance.
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.
I just can't imagine living that kind of life and I'm glad you were able to move on from that. One of my friends struggled with this, he's also divorced now as his ex-wife used to keep score all the time and value his "contribution" to the household lower than what she would do. He eventually got fed up of being belittled and tested everyday so filed for divorce, luckily there were no kids for him and he's now happily married again just last year. I remember being in the room when she did it to him and all of us just felt so awkward afterwards.
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.
At 3, 1 and 0 happily we don't have to worry about that yet! I do think this generation is going to be very anti-clanker.
So far as my own 4 adult children in their 20s are concerned, their political outlook seems to shift quite a bit as they hit the 40% tax band.
I think getting a job at all is the next big challenge as quite a few have been saying here, it's very tough out there even for kids with good degrees or a decent skillset.
Fox jr 2 got quite a nice 4 figure bonus from his advertising company, and by the sound of it a very boozy traditional company party. Not bad for his first proper job (he has done various outher minor jobs at university).
It sounds as if "London is back". I think rising advertising profitability is a reasonably good leading indicator of economic recovery.
It's really not.
Everyone I know who works in the ad industry is either out of work, or fearful of their job. It's part AI (grunt copywriting and graphic design and so on being automated) but it's mostly the shift away from ads as you think of them (tv commercials, posters, billboards, etc) to cheap and cheerful sponsored instagram posts and 'meme' type content made for pennies on the pound, filmed on iphones often by the company staff themselves (think what Currys and Cex are doing on instagram, or Brita water filters with the 'weird' social posts).
Whereas once upon a time the ad industry might have employed thirty to fifty people for six months to a year to make a single 30 second tv commercial, from the creative director to the cameraman to the editor to the makeup artist etc, now it's done by one or two people on their phones. Idea in the morning, script by lunchtime, shot in the afternoon, posted by 5pm.
And that's before you get into banner ads or 'performance' as they call it. Which is just slop churned out to match the vast amounts of data they have on you, showing up in your facebook feed, down the side of news websites etc. Costs pennies to make, mostly automated.
So it's possible to say the ad industry isn't dying, but the 'traditional' element of it is dead and buried now, it's all about ad tech and AI - Meta, Google etc are the world's biggest 'advertising' companies now. More money gets spent on google sponsored search results than gets spent on TV advertising now.
Emblematic of this is the way DDB closed its doors this year, putting 4000 out of work. DDB was the biggest of the old school 'mad men' era ad agencies that were big in the 60s and carried on being very big up until the last few years. Now dinosaurs rapidly going extinct. I know people who got made redundant by that - at a senior level too. All of them chasing a dwindling number of available jobs. Some of them don't reckon they'll ever work in the industry again.
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.
I just can't imagine living that kind of life and I'm glad you were able to move on from that. One of my friends struggled with this, he's also divorced now as his ex-wife used to keep score all the time and value his "contribution" to the household lower than what she would do. He eventually got fed up of being belittled and tested everyday so filed for divorce, luckily there were no kids for him and he's now happily married again just last year. I remember being in the room when she did it to him and all of us just felt so awkward afterwards.
A close relative of mine thought he had a loving wife, until she told him to GTFO, one day. The reason being, (and she was quite frank), her multi-millionaire father was intending to transfer property to her, to save IHT, and she’d no intention of letting him have a potential claim on it.
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
Not at all.
That's regular agnostics.
I'm on the prostheleyzing wing of agnoticism. We hate the wishy washy regular agnostics. They're worse than believers and atheists in our eyes.
On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I belong to an extremist Unitarian fundamentalist sect I’ve founded.
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.
Isn't agnostic sitting on the fence with the believers and atheist on the other sides?
Personally having look at it a lot, religion seems nothing more fear of the unknown.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
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.
To respond to an earlier point, certainly Starmer is on board with Streeting being his successor - indeed the story goes that Starmer was never meant to be PM, he was meant to be the John the Baptist for Streeting, get rid of the lefties, narrowly fail to beat Boris, then Streeting to win the next one. Gloriously, the Tories were so shite they upset the timetable.
Even if that isn't true, Starmer's actions 'against' Streeting gave him unique cover to launch his campaign with no opposition, whilst offering no actual criticism of Streeting at all. Streeting is now conducting a leadership campaign in all but name. Neither is Starmer 'against' joining a customs union with the EU - this is a man who campaigned to stop Brexit being enacted.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
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
Not at all.
That's regular agnostics.
I'm on the prostheleyzing wing of agnoticism. We hate the wishy washy regular agnostics. They're worse than believers and atheists in our eyes.
On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I belong to an extremist Unitarian fundamentalist sect I’ve founded.
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
Not at all.
That's regular agnostics.
I'm on the prostheleyzing wing of agnoticism. We hate the wishy washy regular agnostics. They're worse than believers and atheists in our eyes.
On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I belong to an extremist Unitarian fundamentalist sect I’ve founded.
Are you affiliated to the PCN?
The thugs with a hard line in ULEZ penalty charges?
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
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.
I hope like me you are gently guiding them both to the mushy centrist dad worldview.
They’re getting there. Need to guard against overshoot though.
After my LTN experience today I’m off to join the taxpayers alliance.
That's the problem with all this new fangled camera and "let X Y and Z through, but not A B and C" technology.
In the old days (read almost every housing estate built since about 1960) LTNs were cul-de-sacs and modal filters where it is physically impossible to drive through without driving into a big fat kerb, a metal gate barrier, or the house at the end of the cul-de-sac.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
When I was travelling on work more often I'd buy the DT, decline it (the counter assistant invariably binned it), and take the free bottle of water. Quids in, at least then. No idea how the equation works now.
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
Not at all.
That's regular agnostics.
I'm on the prostheleyzing wing of agnoticism. We hate the wishy washy regular agnostics. They're worse than believers and atheists in our eyes.
On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I belong to an extremist Unitarian fundamentalist sect I’ve founded.
Are you affiliated to the PCN?
Accusing me of being associated with the Parking Charge Notice system?
That’s beyond the pale. Pistols for two upon Hyde Park. Breakfast for one at White’s.
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
Not at all.
That's regular agnostics.
I'm on the prostheleyzing wing of agnoticism. We hate the wishy washy regular agnostics. They're worse than believers and atheists in our eyes.
On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I belong to an extremist Unitarian fundamentalist sect I’ve founded.
Are you affiliated to the PCN?
The thugs with a hard line in ULEZ penalty charges?
No, the other lot - the Progressive Christian Network.
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.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
When I was travelling on work more often I'd buy the DT, decline it (the counter assistant invariably binned it), and take the free bottle of water. Quids in, at least then. No idea how the equation works now.
I just recall being asked to pay about £3 for a small bottle of Evian on Victoria station in a heatwave.
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 cannot even guess what prompted such a bizarre comment as this, reading the thread back will be wild.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
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"...
Yes, I think it is deeply damaging, and it is quite an odd one as young people quite rightly don't like being condescended to (even actual kids do not like it), and we also have lots of people banging on about listening to the younger generations all the time, yet people well into their 20s are sometimes infantilised.
No, there isn't a 100% clear dividing line between child and adult, which is why different things are legal at different ages, but 20 and up? There's no ambiguity there.
(I understand why for care leavers and similar there are good reasons for the authorities to retain some oversight for a time)
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
When I was travelling on work more often I'd buy the DT, decline it (the counter assistant invariably binned it), and take the free bottle of water. Quids in, at least then. No idea how the equation works now.
I just recall being asked to pay about £3 for a small bottle of Evian on Victoria station in a heatwave.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
I can't think of a field of society that isn't usually framed around a tower of lies. Still at Christmas we get to celebrate what we all agree is mostly make-believe. (Sixpences in puddings!)
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
Newspapers are trivially easy to steal, but as with shoplifting anything else speed is all, so just go with whatever is on the top level of the display thing. That's how ended up with the Times as opposed to Farmers Weekly, etc.
Fox jr 2 got quite a nice 4 figure bonus from his advertising company, and by the sound of it a very boozy traditional company party. Not bad for his first proper job (he has done various outher minor jobs at university).
It sounds as if "London is back". I think rising advertising profitability is a reasonably good leading indicator of economic recovery.
Certainly traditionally a good indicator of economic recovery though I wouldn't include the boozy company party as evidence of anything other than ad agencies and suppliers never knowingly being outdone in the free booze department
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
Newspapers are trivially easy to steal, but as with shoplifting anything else speed is all, so just go with whatever is on the top level of the display thing. That's how ended up with the Times as opposed to Farmers Weekly, etc.
Sure. If you go to France the state treasures are (it seems) ludicrously easy to steal too. Perhaps a bad example as I rather approve of that. But you know - stealing. You're supposed to be a pillar of society as a PB poster! Hmm.... I may have to find a better 'big book of good examples to choose'
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
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
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.
Lib Dems have won more local byelections than any other party this year.
And yet they've gone from the 3rd party of British politics to being the 5th...
Don't mistake votes promised to pollsters for votes actually cast in the ballot box. The Lib Dems have every reason to be cheerful.
You have to understand the Tories on here are used to being top dogs - the fact every seat projection puts them as the fifth party in the next Commons with perhaps 40 seats is something with which they're having a lot of trouble dealing.
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 cannot even guess what prompted such a bizarre comment as this, reading the thread back will be wild.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
Newspapers are trivially easy to steal, but as with shoplifting anything else speed is all, so just go with whatever is on the top level of the display thing. That's how ended up with the Times as opposed to Farmers Weekly, etc.
I remember at university staggering back past the local newsagents at some stupid hour and they had left out all their jazz mags which were to be collected as returns. I spent the next day dishing out porn to everyone in halls like some bastard love child of Father Christmas and Paul Raymond.
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.
Malcolm, in my experience any 10 year old would be grossly insulted if it was suggested if they were as irresponsible with money and indeed pretty much anything else as the Holyrood government. The level of governance and competence there is much more akin to pre-school.
In that case I imagine they must have had some hand in the Ajax fiasco (among others)?
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
WHS are awful now (years ago they were great), but I'd like to express a note of disapproval!
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
When I was travelling on work more often I'd buy the DT, decline it (the counter assistant invariably binned it), and take the free bottle of water. Quids in, at least then. No idea how the equation works now.
I just recall being asked to pay about £3 for a small bottle of Evian on Victoria station in a heatwave.
I’m staying 2 nights in Evian next week. I’ll bring some empty bottles.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
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
With both Tories and Labour down, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the LDs just tread water. National opinion polls during the 2022 local campaign period had Labour on around 40%, the Tories on around 34%, with the LDs at 10%. The political situation now is hugely better for the LDs in relation to both the major parties, notwithstanding Reform's huge surge from just 5% back then.
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.
Lib Dems have won more local byelections than any other party this year.
And yet they've gone from the 3rd party of British politics to being the 5th...
Don't mistake votes promised to pollsters for votes actually cast in the ballot box. The Lib Dems have every reason to be cheerful.
You have to understand the Tories on here are used to being top dogs - the fact every seat projection puts them as the fifth party in the next Commons with perhaps 40 seats is something with which they're having a lot of trouble dealing.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
I would have thought they shredded it years ago on the orders of the criminal scumbags they called (and still do call) their solcitors.
Amusingly, the solicitors in question are in terrible trouble over another matter. They're being sued for £120 million in damages because one of their senior partners is so thick he didn't know what an indemnity was or when to use it (or in this case, not use it).
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
If memory serves they all basically say they were completely useless and know nothing and it's not their fault, despite being the sorts of people who naturally fall into high profile jobs paying hundreds of thousands a year.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
Build more houses!
Do bricklayers tend to have more children?
Adults staying at home to live with their parents until their late twenties and beyond unsurprisingly have less kids. It is not rocket science!
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
Build more houses!
Do bricklayers tend to have more children?
Adults staying at home to live with their parents until their late twenties and beyond unsurprisingly have less kids. It is not rocket science!
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Don't be so hard on yourself. I've noticed a very slight improvement in the quality of your PB posts in 2025.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Hiding pain, making excuses to leave early, swooshing over memory lapses, swallowing pills, surely - to name but a few!
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
If memory serves they all basically say they were completely useless and know nothing and it's not their fault, despite being the sorts of people who naturally fall into high profile jobs paying hundreds of thousands a year.
To be fair, the two seem to be not merely not mutually exclusive but positively a sine qua non for many companies and government positions.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Don't be so hard on yourself. I've noticed a very slight improvement in the quality of your PB posts in 2025.
My cricket predictions have unfortunately improved considerably.
I said the Aussies would thrash us and the bastards went and did.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Just remember the words of Frank Spencer (I watched the Some Mothers do ave ‘em Xmas specials on telly today) ‘every day in every way I’m getting better and better.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
I had a friend who tried skiing and felt that two skis weren't his thing. So he tried this new style where you had one.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
If memory serves they all basically say they were completely useless and know nothing and it's not their fault, despite being the sorts of people who naturally fall into high profile jobs paying hundreds of thousands a year.
To be fair, the two seem to be not merely not mutually exclusive but positively a sine qua non for many companies and government positions.
Only if you know the right sort of people.
Nonetheless it is infuriating when they deploy the two bits simultaneously. I'd bet good money most of the top people at the Post Office are doing just fine or even better now than they were before, as consequences are for the proles.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time. A new language for instance. I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
I had a friend who tried skiing and felt that two skis weren't his thing. So he tried this new style where you had one.
Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working
Sounds like common sense in this economy
Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
My wife was referred to as a geriatric mother. She didn’t take it personally - she gave birth to our son at the age of 42.
Who's surprised? An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
The danger, as I am sure Ms Cyclefree would attest, is that too many prosecutions are pursued and the whole thing gets unwieldy. It would be better to focus on a hndful of slam dunk cases.
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Too many? So far the police have interviewed four people in relation the post office scandal. That is over 5 years at a cost of £7m with a current headcount of 100 people.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
Did you know that some of the Post Office investigators…. joined the police?
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
My wife was referred to as a geriatric mother. She didn’t take it personally - she gave birth to our son at the age of 42.
The way that's phrased reminds me of the great Kevin Keegan:
Goalkeepers aren't born today until they're in their late twenties or thirties.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.
I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).
Don't be so hard on yourself. I've noticed a very slight improvement in the quality of your PB posts in 2025.
My cricket predictions have unfortunately improved considerably.
I said the Aussies would thrash us and the bastards went and did.
I’ve got a 5-0 whitewash still on track, but I’d love it to fail. I was in NZ during the 1998-99 Ashes and at least we won one of those matches.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
I am sceptical...
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
What makes men grow up? Running their own home is high on the list, whether that is at 18 or 28.
I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
Speaking of the Times, I was on a car collection caper this morning and shoplifted a copy from WHS at the railway station to read on the train (WHS woman totally not bothered) and I noticed it had a Zelensky hatchet job in it. We're obviously being softened up for something.
Comments
Obviously selling to parents is profitable. Parents want the best for their kids and are mostly prepared to pay for it. So there's lots of advertising to convince parents that a particular product is the thing that will help your child to grow up well-adjusted, happy and healthy.
Non-parents see this advertising too, and the message they learn is that they need to have oodles of spare cash to be able to buy all the things a child needs, and so they wait until they have that cash.
Ban advertising.
I think that's the one single reform that could do the most to improve the world.
It sounds as if "London is back". I think rising advertising profitability is a reasonably good leading indicator of economic recovery.
Mr Swinney is seen as a more capable pair of hands when viewed up against Labour. That's not to say a lot of people don't want change, it is in part that the options available are poor
Blame WFP, cuts, tax rises on business, tax rises on everybody from Labour, the backdrop is not good. Which is why I think we are looking at another SNP government of some description (as things stand)
That's regular agnostics.
I'm on the prostheleyzing wing of agnoticism. We hate the wishy washy regular agnostics. They're worse than believers and atheists in our eyes.
Although, to conflate issues discussed earlier, whether he'd have been able to afford his house without his share of his mother's life insurance........
After my LTN experience today I’m off to join the taxpayers alliance.
That means coming up with a whole bunch of new ideas - making it easier for women to start careers in their thirties *after* having children, for example.
But also, as a culture, simply valuing children instead of seeing them as a problem.
It's hard sometimes to see through your own misery and discomfort and be empathetic to the needs of a partner.
Your last sentence is bang on.
I’m sure US wrestling is not to everyone’s taste.
EDIT: Did I just press send??
Huddersfield is Labour 1st, Green 2nd at the moment and has the lowest required swing nationality for the Greens, including Bristol seats. But it is not a city central seat where one couldn't possibly imagine Reform coming through the middle. Choose wrong, split the vote and we get a Reform MP, simple as.
Labour, as incumbent, will get some benefit of the doubt with me, but if they are dead as dodos come GE time, I'm perfectly prepared to go Green to defeat Reform. The likely local candidate is excellent and a local councillor I already vote for, so despite Zac, despite knowing I'm aligning myself with the Gaza vote, I will go there if I have to.
Did I avoid voting Corbyn Labour at any election - local, national, European - to end up here? Possibly not, but unless the Greens end up challenging for Downing Street, I think it would be a considerably different circumstance.
Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.
There are few decent Xmas tracks. The Waitresses, Queen, E John. M Carey and even G Glitter although his ‘noncing’ makes me want to avoid that.
Everyone I know who works in the ad industry is either out of work, or fearful of their job. It's part AI (grunt copywriting and graphic design and so on being automated) but it's mostly the shift away from ads as you think of them (tv commercials, posters, billboards, etc) to cheap and cheerful sponsored instagram posts and 'meme' type content made for pennies on the pound, filmed on iphones often by the company staff themselves (think what Currys and Cex are doing on instagram, or Brita water filters with the 'weird' social posts).
Whereas once upon a time the ad industry might have employed thirty to fifty people for six months to a year to make a single 30 second tv commercial, from the creative director to the cameraman to the editor to the makeup artist etc, now it's done by one or two people on their phones. Idea in the morning, script by lunchtime, shot in the afternoon, posted by 5pm.
And that's before you get into banner ads or 'performance' as they call it. Which is just slop churned out to match the vast amounts of data they have on you, showing up in your facebook feed, down the side of news websites etc. Costs pennies to make, mostly automated.
So it's possible to say the ad industry isn't dying, but the 'traditional' element of it is dead and buried now, it's all about ad tech and AI - Meta, Google etc are the world's biggest 'advertising' companies now. More money gets spent on google sponsored search results than gets spent on TV advertising now.
Emblematic of this is the way DDB closed its doors this year, putting 4000 out of work. DDB was the biggest of the old school 'mad men' era ad agencies that were big in the 60s and carried on being very big up until the last few years. Now dinosaurs rapidly going extinct. I know people who got made redundant by that - at a senior level too. All of them chasing a dwindling number of available jobs. Some of them don't reckon they'll ever work in the industry again.
Personally having look at it a lot, religion seems nothing more fear of the unknown.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/202107/why-do-humans-keep-inventing-gods-worship
My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.
There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids
Even if that isn't true, Starmer's actions 'against' Streeting gave him unique cover to launch his campaign with no opposition, whilst offering no actual criticism of Streeting at all. Streeting is now conducting a leadership campaign in all but name. Neither is Starmer 'against' joining a customs union with the EU - this is a man who campaigned to stop Brexit being enacted.
So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.
(Given what WHS try to charge for bottles of water I'm not sure that it wouldn't be seen as self defence)
In the old days (read almost every housing estate built since about 1960) LTNs were cul-de-sacs and modal filters where it is physically impossible to drive through without driving into a big fat kerb, a metal gate barrier, or the house at the end of the cul-de-sac.
That’s beyond the pale. Pistols for two upon Hyde Park. Breakfast for one at White’s.
Christmas (I’m currently watching a Bridget Jones movie with my wife who is on holiday for a week 😱) or the ads you struggle to avoid.
Can’t wait till it’s over and it’s ads for holidays and the sales.
He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.
No, there isn't a 100% clear dividing line between child and adult, which is why different things are legal at different ages, but 20 and up? There's no ambiguity there.
(I understand why for care leavers and similar there are good reasons for the authorities to retain some oversight for a time)
An agreement was in place in 2006 for errors caused by bugs in the software to be corrected, or for Fujitsu to pay the Post Office up to £150 per transaction if it failed to do so.
The revelation directly contradicts the Post Office's claims during criminal prosecutions - which led to hundreds of wrongful convictions and civil cases that destroyed livelihoods - that no bugs existed capable of causing accounting shortfalls. It also shows the Post Office knew almost two decades ago that Horizon could not always be relied upon to record transactions accurately
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqlkx6n15ero
Don’t worry, no one senior will be prosecuted.
I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.
But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.
And one of a number of great foreign pianists who made their home in London.
We did note his death.
But the other three aren't mysteries to me.
I would have thought they shredded it years ago on the orders of the criminal scumbags they called (and still do call) their solcitors.
Amusingly, the solicitors in question are in terrible trouble over another matter. They're being sued for £120 million in damages because one of their senior partners is so thick he didn't know what an indemnity was or when to use it (or in this case, not use it).
These should of course be aimed at the more senior staff. I would definitely start with a couple of chief execs.
Sounds like common sense in this economy
I've noticed a very slight improvement in the quality of your PB posts in 2025.
I said the Aussies would thrash us and the bastards went and did.
A new language for instance.
I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently
I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.
Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.
But he said he just got board of it.
If they really find that too unwieldy lets just forget all about it.
Nonetheless it is infuriating when they deploy the two bits simultaneously. I'd bet good money most of the top people at the Post Office are doing just fine or even better now than they were before, as consequences are for the proles.
People with more leisure time will boost the economy and be happier.
I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.
Goalkeepers aren't born today until they're in their late twenties or thirties.