Afternoon all. Been poking around the polling figures released today - Focaldata VI abd YG govt approval and 'biggest issues' All very much MoE (although the Tories have had 4 polling minus 2s now so perhaps a small hit taken in the short term?). No real evidence of significant bounces or flops. The only stand out stat is defence now being third biggest issue and +10 on salience. Understandably. Id get the Dragon moving Keir.
We are somewhere around Ref 26.5 Lab 19 Con 18.5 Green 14 LD 12 on average
Seems MOE at best
Some interestimg comment in the press from Lord Hayward today (Guardian i think) on the trad parties canvassers for the locals reporting increased 'Anyone but reform' responses. We may see some surprising results in May. Ive got Norfolk ready for analysis of course but i have Solihull earmarked as a bellweather of vote holding up-iness
The problem with anyone but reform is working out who that anyone is - that’s why the Green Party did well in Gorton, it was the obvious candidate
I think people are pretty good at knowing who is strong locally. If not, bullshit bar charts for the win
It's starting to dawn on him that this is a debacle from which he needs to distant himself.
They probably embarked on Operation Epstein Fury because they managed to convince themselves it would be easy. See also the SMO, Suez and Leeds Utd's 2000/2001 Champions League campaign
Looks like Rubio is going to be set up for the fall, rather than Hegseth.
Well, he's got eyes on the Presidency hasn't he. Which could be a problem for Vance or Don Jr.
It's starting to dawn on him that this is a debacle from which he needs to distant himself.
They probably embarked on Operation Epstein Fury because they managed to convince themselves it would be easy. See also the SMO, Suez and Leeds Utd's 2000/2001 Champions League campaign
Looks like Rubio is going to be set up for the fall, rather than Hegseth.
Great result in the longterm, gets rid of the more competent operator and keeps the drunk
Day off so brewed more beer today. I got a really early start, so thought I might have time to put a brew I made a couple of weeks ago in bottles. I checked the bus times and realised it’d be close.. should I risk missing the bus or chicken out?
Afternoon all. Been poking around the polling figures released today - Focaldata VI abd YG govt approval and 'biggest issues' All very much MoE (although the Tories have had 4 polling minus 2s now so perhaps a small hit taken in the short term?). No real evidence of significant bounces or flops. The only stand out stat is defence now being third biggest issue and +10 on salience. Understandably. Id get the Dragon moving Keir.
We are somewhere around Ref 26.5 Lab 19 Con 18.5 Green 14 LD 12 on average
Seems MOE at best
Some interestimg comment in the press from Lord Hayward today (Guardian i think) on the trad parties canvassers for the locals reporting increased 'Anyone but reform' responses. We may see some surprising results in May. Ive got Norfolk ready for analysis of course but i have Solihull earmarked as a bellweather of vote holding up-iness
The problem with anyone but reform is working out who that anyone is - that’s why the Green Party did well in Gorton, it was the obvious candidate
I think people are pretty good at knowing who is strong locally. If not, bullshit bar charts for the win
I suspect that in our Council by-election last week the Indie assumed he was going to win. And he might have beaten the Reformer but for a strong Labour campaign and the LD not bothering with bar-charts.
A post regarding the two individuals arrested for throwing homemade bombs outside of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home failed to reflect the gravity of the incident thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It has therefore been deleted.
Yet still not admiting that this was an Islamist terror attack aimed at those protesting Mamdani.
It didn't fail to reflect the gravity of the situation. It failed to accurately communicate who was responsible, who the intended victims were and where the blame for the attempted terrorist attack lay. In other words you didn't accidentally downplay the seriousness of it, you deliberately misrepresented what happened to conceal the truth from the public.
Fucking hell that original CNN tweet is indescribably mendacious
When Trump calls them “fake news”, he isn’t always wrong.
A post regarding the two individuals arrested for throwing homemade bombs outside of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home failed to reflect the gravity of the incident thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It has therefore been deleted.
Yet still not admiting that this was an Islamist terror attack aimed at those protesting Mamdani.
It didn't fail to reflect the gravity of the situation. It failed to accurately communicate who was responsible, who the intended victims were and where the blame for the attempted terrorist attack lay. In other words you didn't accidentally downplay the seriousness of it, you deliberately misrepresented what happened to conceal the truth from the public.
Fucking hell that original CNN tweet is indescribably mendacious
When Trump calls them “fake news”, he isn’t always wrong.
It's Nazi-ish or Mao-like levels of politicised misreporting. Mind-boggling
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Yes, the retirement age needs to rise.
That doesn't -unfortunately- stop the cost of healthcare continuing to rise, but it at least partially ameliorates the issue.
In 1947 average male life expectancy was 64 years and 7 months. Retirement age was 65 (someone had a sense of humour) Today my life expectancy is 80 and my current retirement age is 67.
I doubt very much if I will retire at 67 but regardless, the current situation is untenable.
I have worked with people offshore who were in their early 70s.
We should raise retirement age to 70 with exceptions for physically demanding jobs. This is already the plan in Denmark.
There is something in what you say, but rather than use life expectancy of birth when comparing, it should be life expectency at retirement age.
I cannot see a simple way of calculating this at age 65 in 1947, but it is easy to do that for now.
The average person then only got a handful of years of state pension, but thanks to modern brilliant healthcare we can keep people alive for two decades or more of retirement.
The danger of life expectancy as 'how long can I expect to live" is that for most of human history its been skewed by high infant mortality. Thus people assume that there were no old people but a life expectancy of 50 didn't mean that no-one lived past 50.
I'm sure in 1950 the expected extra life for someone at 65 was more than 2 years.
In pre-industrial societies, life expectancy at birth was about 25. That's quite a consistent number.
But, as you indicate, that is distorted by enormous rates of child mortality. 45-50% of children would die before 14. Then, 10% of women would die from childbirth. And a similar proportion of men would die in wars, accidents on farms, at sea etc. (Natural disasters tended to carry off far more people than in modern rich countries, as well).
Avoid those risks, and you could probably expect to reach 60 or so.
Well, not really. Just to take some obvious points, no King of England made it past 70 until the eighteenth century (discounting Richard Cromwell) and only seven made it past 60 (if I cut the age to 50 it only adds about another five). Only one King of Scots definitely made it past 60 (Robert II, discounting John Balliol). Shakespeare died at 52. Groping further into antiquity, Hadrian died aged 56.
Of course, there were some people who lived a very long time. Augustus was 76. Lord Burghley was 78. William Hiseland's age may not have been 112 but there's every reason to think he hit 100. But they were very rare. Dick Whittington and Elizabeth I were both noted for their age and they both died aged 69.
A post regarding the two individuals arrested for throwing homemade bombs outside of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home failed to reflect the gravity of the incident thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It has therefore been deleted.
Yet still not admiting that this was an Islamist terror attack aimed at those protesting Mamdani.
It didn't fail to reflect the gravity of the situation. It failed to accurately communicate who was responsible, who the intended victims were and where the blame for the attempted terrorist attack lay. In other words you didn't accidentally downplay the seriousness of it, you deliberately misrepresented what happened to conceal the truth from the public.
Fucking hell that original CNN tweet is indescribably mendacious
Where can I read the original tweet? I've tried to find it as part of the links already given but not sure where it is.
A post regarding the two individuals arrested for throwing homemade bombs outside of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home failed to reflect the gravity of the incident thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It has therefore been deleted.
Yet still not admiting that this was an Islamist terror attack aimed at those protesting Mamdani.
It didn't fail to reflect the gravity of the situation. It failed to accurately communicate who was responsible, who the intended victims were and where the blame for the attempted terrorist attack lay. In other words you didn't accidentally downplay the seriousness of it, you deliberately misrepresented what happened to conceal the truth from the public.
Fucking hell that original CNN tweet is indescribably mendacious
Where can I read the original tweet? I've tried to find it as part of the links already given but not sure where it is.
Life expectancy is one thing. Healthy life expectancy another. We are simply extending the length of end of life sickness in the main.
Can I just gently say when you are old as I am at 82 and have had various health scares, I and my family are very grateful for being given more time no matter my frailties and I and they prefer we live as long as we can
I'm 83 next month and I've just returned from an energetic skiing holiday in the Dolomites. I retired on a full inflation proofed pension over 30 years ago at the age of 52. I have no complaints. Do I sound smug? Maybe I am. I just consider myself very lucky. I'm a Daoist. Have I already said that?
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Yes, the retirement age needs to rise.
That doesn't -unfortunately- stop the cost of healthcare continuing to rise, but it at least partially ameliorates the issue.
In 1947 average male life expectancy was 64 years and 7 months. Retirement age was 65 (someone had a sense of humour) Today my life expectancy is 80 and my current retirement age is 67.
I doubt very much if I will retire at 67 but regardless, the current situation is untenable.
I have worked with people offshore who were in their early 70s.
We should raise retirement age to 70 with exceptions for physically demanding jobs. This is already the plan in Denmark.
There is something in what you say, but rather than use life expectancy of birth when comparing, it should be life expectency at retirement age.
I cannot see a simple way of calculating this at age 65 in 1947, but it is easy to do that for now.
The average person then only got a handful of years of state pension, but thanks to modern brilliant healthcare we can keep people alive for two decades or more of retirement.
The danger of life expectancy as 'how long can I expect to live" is that for most of human history its been skewed by high infant mortality. Thus people assume that there were no old people but a life expectancy of 50 didn't mean that no-one lived past 50.
I'm sure in 1950 the expected extra life for someone at 65 was more than 2 years.
In pre-industrial societies, life expectancy at birth was about 25. That's quite a consistent number.
But, as you indicate, that is distorted by enormous rates of child mortality. 45-50% of children would die before 14. Then, 10% of women would die from childbirth. And a similar proportion of men would die in wars, accidents on farms, at sea etc. (Natural disasters tended to carry off far more people than in modern rich countries, as well).
Avoid those risks, and you could probably expect to reach 60 or so.
As a rule Infant mortality has been excluded from life expectency figures when studying changes since the Victorian period. Tis is the norm in such studies.
I hope your post indicates that you plan to retire before 67 rather than after!! If not, and it's not too late, can I recommend a pensions advisor?
We've all worked with greedy b******ds who wouldn't let go and carried on to the detriment of their younger colleagues development and financial prospects, but you're a long time dead and ill health can ruin retirement plans.
ageist crap driven by jealousy, keep cleaning those toilets and leave it to pensioners to do the tough stuff
Life expectancy is one thing. Healthy life expectancy another. We are simply extending the length of end of life sickness in the main.
Can I just gently say when you are old as I am at 82 and have had various health scares, I and my family are very grateful for being given more time no matter my frailties and I and they prefer we live as long as we can
Life expectancy is one thing. Healthy life expectancy another. We are simply extending the length of end of life sickness in the main.
Can I just gently say when you are old as I am at 82 and have had various health scares, I and my family are very grateful for being given more time no matter my frailties and I and they prefer we live as long as we can
I'm 83 next month and I've just returned from an energetic skiing holiday in the Dolomites. I retired on a full inflation proofed pension over 30 years ago at the age of 52. I have no complaints. Do I sound smug? Maybe I am. I just consider myself very lucky. I'm a Daoist. Have I already said that?
You are pretty much the same as my dad. Retired at 56 on a brilliant police pension, now had 30 years of it. Arguably many things in life are better now then for those who were born in the 1940's but for some of them they have had a brilliant life.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
Let's leave aside the migration question for now.
(1) There is no evidence that fracking in the UK is economic. None of the well drilled by Cuadrilla or iGas found commercial quantities of natural gas. Now, should there have been a ban? Nope. But that doesn't change the fundamental problem that (a) costs would be massively higher than the US because we're a small, densely populated country, and fracking takes a lot of space and equipment, and (b) there are no formations that look like being even vaguely close in terms of prospects to the ones that are economic.
(2) Defence cuts happened because there is financial pressure on the government. There is financial pressure on the government principally because we have an ageing population. Old people need to recieve pensions, and they cost a lot of money to look after via the social care network and the NHS. This pressure is not going away. And the ratio between the number of workers are the number of retirees is going to keep getting worse (especially in a world with zero or negative migration).
(3) We are not a rich country in terms of commodities. Now, we could have done a much better job managing the North Sea (and been more Norwegian), but even if we had done, it is highly unlikely that we could be anywhere near self sufficient in terms of energy currently. (That will change with renewables over time, but that is a twenty year story, not a two year one.) Irrespective, we are always going to need to import aluminium, copper, tungsten, and a million other things. And that has always been the case. What exactly is Ms Truss proposing that solves our dependence on getting commodities from abroad?
Now, did the UK government -particularly the one which Ms Truss was a leading member of- let immigration get completely out of control? Yes, it did.
But that doesn't stop the rest of her tweet from being utterly absurd.
Not to mention food, which you'd imagine pork-markets lady might have considered.
Liz Truss does not get it, even remotely.
But, at a certain level, they are the right questions to ask. Assuming that global supply chains are never disrupted and run on free market principles is ridiculous..
Is anyone really assuming that ? I seriously doubt it. Particularly after the experience of the last few years.
Then UK made its problems. in that respect, somewhat larger when it divorced itself from Europe. Truss is simply restating problems which she was, while in office under various governments, partly responsible for. She's not presenting any significant solutions.
There is stuff which is consensus across the political spectrum (and also runs into opposition) - for example the government's current plans to make it far easier and cheaper to build nuclear power stations. No doubt Truss would agree with that, but so do I, and (if he is sincere) so does Starmer.
On PPE
1) disposable PPE is the chosen option 2) during the pandemic usage went up by orders of magnitude. 3) PPE has a shelf life 4) so a stockpile of PPE for a pandemic would require vast amounts to be thrown away each year at huge cost. 5) a domestic manufacturing capacity with the flexibility to suddenly make an order of magnitude more would cost vast amounts 6) and you would need all the precursor materials as well 7) can’t possibly use non-disposable PPE as standard. Because of memories of gas masks from 1953, apparently. 8) the problem is too big
So the plan for the next pandemic is to place really big orders with Chinese manufacturers.
Yes, really
Or shells for artillery we don’t make either.
Or take the whole steel debate. Virgin steel is vital for X,Y and Z. But even if we maintained the furnaces in the U.K. we would need to import ore.
The questions that weren’t asked - could we learn to make X, Y and Z from scrap? The history of steel is full of such leaps.. should we stockpile steel instead?
I've been advocating an industrial policy for years, FWIW.
It's been conservative orthodoxy ever since Thatcher that it should be left to the market. Still is, AFAICS.
The "easy" things are stuff like planning reform - which should be essentially cost free (except to the pockets of planning lawyers etc), and could conceivable have quite a large economic impact. Stuff like industrial policy is much harder, and I don't have a great deal of confidence in government, this one included, to get it right.
It's starting to dawn on him that this is a debacle from which he needs to distant himself.
They probably embarked on Operation Epstein Fury because they managed to convince themselves it would be easy. See also the SMO, Suez and Leeds Utd's 2000/2001 Champions League campaign
Looks like Rubio is going to be set up for the fall, rather than Hegseth.
Well, he's got eyes on the Presidency hasn't he. Which could be a problem for Vance or Don Jr.
I have a hunch that Trump will endorse Newsom for the Presidency in 2028 for a number of reasons. 1. It will be very dramatic and newsworthy. Trump will remain the centre of attention. 2. Newsom looks the part. 3. He despises Vance and little Rubio and thinks they are nothing without him. 4. He might be able to do a deal with Newsom to protect himself and his family from litigation in return for his endorsement.
Comments
If not, bullshit bar charts for the win
You sound like Badenoch
Ships take years ordered
Planes ordered
Increase year on year
Plus cost of Ukraine.
NEW THREAD
In the end I didn’t bottle it; I bottled it
All because Donald Trump needed a distraction from revelations about his various sexual crimes.
Thanks a fucking bunch, Donald Trump.
Of course, there were some people who lived a very long time. Augustus was 76. Lord Burghley was 78. William Hiseland's age may not have been 112 but there's every reason to think he hit 100. But they were very rare. Dick Whittington and Elizabeth I were both noted for their age and they both died aged 69.
I retired on a full inflation proofed pension over 30 years ago at the age of 52.
I have no complaints.
Do I sound smug? Maybe I am. I just consider myself very lucky.
I'm a Daoist. Have I already said that?
It's been conservative orthodoxy ever since Thatcher that it should be left to the market. Still is, AFAICS.
The "easy" things are stuff like planning reform - which should be essentially cost free (except to the pockets of planning lawyers etc), and could conceivable have quite a large economic impact.
Stuff like industrial policy is much harder, and I don't have a great deal of confidence in government, this one included, to get it right.
1. It will be very dramatic and newsworthy. Trump will remain the centre of attention.
2. Newsom looks the part.
3. He despises Vance and little Rubio and thinks they are nothing without him.
4. He might be able to do a deal with Newsom to protect himself and his family from litigation in return for his endorsement.