Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2020 Democratic nomination race: Sanders and O’Rourke be

24

Comments

  • So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    I suspect we're playing with demons anyway, regarding China as a potential partners. Chinese statesmanship traditionally has a long memory and 150 or so years ago we bullied the collapsing Empire.
    We need to be careful there.

    When David Cameron spoke to the Dalai Lama it caused British businesses - including ours - no end of trouble in China. That was probably fair enough given Chinese repression in Tibet and the need to make a stand on that. But what Williamson is doing is futile and he is doing it only because he wants to be Tory leader. Given the bridges we are currently burning with the EU and the US (hello Irish American lobby) messing around with the Chinese in their sphere of influence to further the political ambitions of a man-child is absurd.

    Yup, we should surrender all our principles to make a quick buck in China.

    That’s definitely the sort of country I want to live in.

    It’s the one you’re going to get.

    I don’t share your fatalism.

    Sorry.

    Don’t apologise. Just prepare to be disappointed.

  • Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Jonathan said:

    malcolmg said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    Whatever administration happens to be in power it will never be short of commentators who say, “this is the worst administration since De Montfort”, or similar, as the objective is to generate a call to action for its removal and replacement.

    It’s just about the most cliched thing in politics there is.
    Though very accurate in this instance
    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in a position to invest significantly more resources in the NHS.

    I consider it a success.
    Blimey. That’s a full on start to Monday morning. This administration is a basket case. The previous administration was somewhat better with the Lib Dem (we underestimated their influence at the time), but pure Tory government is a textbook example in how not to do it and a reminder on why they have only won a single majority in 27 years.
    Which specific Lib Dems and Lib Dem policies do you think were responiblre for fixing the country's finances?
    The country’s finances are not fixed. The Tories lost our AAA rating and are yet to recover it.

    That’s a bit weak. They had the biggest hospital pas of the last 50 years from Labour.

    It’s astonishing our credit rating didn’t fall further.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,752

    malcolmg said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    Whatever administration happens to be in power it will never be short of commentators who say, “this is the worst administration since De Montfort”, or similar, as the objective is to generate a call to action for its removal and replacement.

    It’s just about the most cliched thing in politics there is.
    Though very accurate in this instance
    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in a position to invest significantly more resources in the NHS.

    I consider it a success.
    As others have said, to lump in the Lib-Con coalition with Theresa May's administration is a bit of a stretch.

    I'm starting to think of it as a transition from Cabinet Government to Padded Cell Government.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    Charles said:

    How did the whole
    KLOBUCHAR thing start?

    With a blizzard of publicity
    Her support will drift away....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,279

    Full KLOBUCHAR announcement speech for my fellow Baemy fans:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYYUYiyfzCQ

    Surely, the Baemy Army?
    I'm not sure I catch your drift..
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677



    Yup, we should surrender all our principles to make a quick buck in China.

    That’s definitely the sort of country I want to live in.

    Why do think the RAF operate a joint squadron with the Qataris while, AT THE SAME TIME, bombing ISIS who are funded by Qatar.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,279

    Charles said:

    How did the whole
    KLOBUCHAR thing start?

    With a blizzard of publicity
    Her support will drift away....
    Or be buried by the Warren avalanche.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,279
    Dura_Ace said:



    Yup, we should surrender all our principles to make a quick buck in China.

    That’s definitely the sort of country I want to live in.

    Why do think the RAF operate a joint squadron with the Qataris while, AT THE SAME TIME, bombing ISIS who are funded by Qatar.
    Surely posters on PB ought to be familiar with the idea of hedging bets ?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,676

    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Jonathan said:

    malcolmg said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    Whatever administration happens to be in power it will never be short of commentators who say, “this is the worst administration since De Montfort”, or similar, as the objective is to generate a call to action for its removal and replacement.

    It’s just about the most cliched thing in politics there is.
    Though very accurate in this instance
    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in a position to invest significantly more resources in the NHS.

    I consider it a success.
    Blimey. That’s a full on start to Monday morning. This administration is a basket case. The previous administration was somewhat better with the Lib Dem (we underestimated their influence at the time).
    Which specific Lib Dems and Lib Dem policies do you think were responiblre for fixing the country's finances?
    The country’s finances are not fixed. The Tories lost our AAA rating and are yet to recover it.

    That’s a bit weak. They had the biggest hospital pas of the last 50 years from Labour.

    It’s astonishing our credit rating didn’t fall further.
    By any objective measure the country’s finances have not recovered, including THE measure the Tories asked us to judge them on. Nearly ten years on what is weak is that you’re still blaming others. What is tragic is that you’re about to actively, consciously, and wholly avoidably damage them again.
  • malcolmg said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    Whatever administration happens to be in power it will never be short of commentators who say, “this is the worst administration since De Montfort”, or similar, as the objective is to generate a call to action for its removal and replacement.

    It’s just about the most cliched thing in politics there is.
    Though very accurate in this instance
    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in a position to invest significantly more resources in the NHS.

    I consider it a success.
    The country has stopped bleeding money but has large debts left. Our current account deficit means we rely on foreigners mostly Europeans to fund our debts. We create low paying jobs but fail to invest in assets to support higher paying jobs. Our school system produces average kids. Weak at languages but ok at science. We are solidly mid table but lacking a good coach and starting to bleed talent.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Yup, we should surrender all our principles to make a quick buck in China.

    That’s definitely the sort of country I want to live in.

    Why do think the RAF operate a joint squadron with the Qataris while, AT THE SAME TIME, bombing ISIS who are funded by Qatar.
    Surely posters on PB ought to be familiar with the idea of hedging bets ?
    It's nothing to do with hedging. It's done to keep the Typhoon and Hawk production lines in business. The UK is, to use Casino's phrase, surrendering its principles to make a quick buck. See also Saudi.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Jonathan said:


    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in a position to invest significantly more resources in the NHS.

    I consider it a success.

    Blimey. That’s a full on start to Monday morning. This administration is a basket case. The previous administration was somewhat better with the Lib Dem (we underestimated their influence at the time), but pure Tory government is a textbook example in how not to do it and a reminder on why they have only won a single majority in 27 years.
    Which specific Lib Dems and Lib Dem policies do you think were responiblre for fixing the country's finances?
    The country’s finances are not fixed. The Tories lost our AAA rating and are yet to recover it.

    That’s a bit weak. They had the biggest hospital pas of the last 50 years from Labour.

    It’s astonishing our credit rating didn’t fall further.
    All right then, the clear improvements in the economy since 2010 (I'm thinking mainly the deficit and employment figures).

    The first year of Tory only government was absolutely fine. The contrast with the current situation is entirely Brexit related. Give it till 2022 (assuming there's no election in between) before writing them off as basket cases.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,752

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because the looney wing of the Tory party doesn't support any of those, so such a referendum would break the Tory party?

    And Tories these days think it's better to break the country than to break the party (not being bright enough to realise that the former implies the latter anyway).
  • In I, Claudius (which I'm re-watching), Caligula has just had an unorthodox supper.

    So, we could have worse leaders than the incumbents.

    Having a horse as, say, Defence Secretary may not necessarily be worse.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,387
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Jonathan said:

    malcolmg said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    Whatever administration happens to be in power it will never be short of commentators who say, “this is the worst administration since De Montfort”, or similar, as the objective is to generate a call to action for its removal and replacement.

    It’s just about the most cliched thing in politics there is.
    Though very accurate in this instance
    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in

    I consider it a success.
    Blimey. That’s a full on start to Monday morning. This administration is a basket case. The previous administration was somewhat better with the Lib Dem (we underestimated their influence at the time).
    Which specific Lib Dems and Lib Dem policies do you think were responiblre for fixing the country's finances?
    The country’s finances are not fixed. The Tories lost our AAA rating and are yet to recover it.

    That’s a bit weak. They had the biggest hospital pas of the last 50 years from Labour.

    It’s astonishing our credit rating didn’t fall further.
    By any objective measure the country’s finances have not recovered, including THE measure the Tories asked us to judge them on. Nearly ten years on what is weak is that you’re still blaming others. What is tragic is that you’re about to actively, consciously, and wholly avoidably damage them again.
    A deficit of 1.5% of GDP is preferable to one of 10%, regardless whether your rating is AA or AAA.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    I suspect we're playing with demons anyway, regarding China as a potential partners. Chinese statesmanship traditionally has a long memory and 150 or so years ago we bullied the collapsing Empire.
    We need to be careful there.

    When David Cameron spoke to the Dalai Lama it caused British businesses - including ours - no end of trouble in China. That was probably fair enough given Chinese repression in Tibet and the need to make a stand on that. But what Williamson is doing is futile and he is doing it only because he wants to be Tory leader. Given the bridges we are currently burning with the EU and the US (hello Irish American lobby) messing around with the Chinese in their sphere of influence to further the political ambitions of a man-child is absurd.

    China needs to be stood up to now; a world where the middle kingdom again becomes the dominant power isn't good for anyone.

    The Chinese character doesn't respect weakness and appeasement, they always come back for more.

    In a hundred years, we may view the current events in the south china sea, like we do the re-occupation of the rhineland.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816
    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,010
    edited February 2019
    Jonathan said:

    _Anazina_ said:

    malcolmg said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    Whatever administration happens to be in power it will never be short of commentators who say, “this is the worst administration since De Montfort”, or similar, as the objective is to generate a call to action for its removal and replacement.

    It’s just about the most cliched thing in politics there is.
    Though very accurate in this instance
    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in a position to invest significantly more resources in the NHS.

    I consider it a success.
    Self-evidently true but the left depend on exaggerating bad news and ignoring good news. We are told that lots of hacks desperate for a different story read this blog. Lets make the suggestion and see where it ends up. "Setting Brexit aside, the present government which took power in 2010 has been the most effective in modern times - discuss"
    Only from the PB Tories.


    Only on PB.
    It’s rather wonderful, the triumph of the human spirit over reality. Like an octogenarian lothario putting his teeth in, adjusting his toupee and out chasing the ladies again.
    *Hans Zimmer intro*

    SeanT 2049.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Chris said:

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because the looney wing of the Tory party doesn't support any of those, so such a referendum would break the Tory party?

    And Tories these days think it's better to break the country than to break the party (not being bright enough to realise that the former implies the latter anyway).
    Where exactly is the majority for May's deal subject to a second referendum? Supporters of that approach recently pulled an amendment designed to get there, explicitly due to lack of support.

    Also Corbyn's proposed approach cannot be described as Norway anything, since that requires freedom of movement, which Labour officially oppose. As May has just pointed out to Corbyn.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,289
    May I introduce Brexit.

    I got the feeling from last week that something is afoot again on the deal front. I can only think it is the backstop to the backstop and, given the limited variables to play with here, I have long only been able to envisage it being Anglo-Irish of some description.

    My guess - backstop will have an end date between 2024-2026. Backstop to the backstop will be an Anglo Irish arrangement of remote inspection, technology, and acceptance that any holes in the solution will not be closed off by border checks. Knowing May, one could even see the Combined Customs Territory making a comeback. The EU will close any remaining gaps by what they hope to be low level checks on Irish goods entering the EU (both at Dover and at Irish air an sea ports). The agreement will be primarily between the UK and Ireland, with EU permission The temporary nature of it will be repeated endlessly for the Irish.

    The debate will be around where and how this is written in, how political support is handled in Ireland
    (couldt thisto to referendum) and whether it will be enough for things to pass in the UK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,198
    edited February 2019

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    I suspect we're playing with demons anyway, regarding China as a potential partners. Chinese statesmanship traditionally has a long memory and 150 or so years ago we bullied the collapsing Empire.
    We need to be careful there.

    When David Cameron spoke to the Dalai Lama it caused British businesses - including ours - no end of trouble in China. That was probably fair enough given Chinese repression in Tibet and the need to make a stand on that. But what Williamson is doing is futile and he is doing it only because he wants to be Tory leader. Given the bridges we are currently burning with the EU and the US (hello Irish American lobby) messing around with the Chinese in their sphere of influence to further the political ambitions of a man-child is absurd.

    China needs to be stood up to now; a world where the middle kingdom again becomes the dominant power isn't good for anyone.

    The Chinese character doesn't respect weakness and appeasement, they always come back for more.

    In a hundred years, we may view the current events in the south china sea, like we do the re-occupation of the rhineland.
    Given McDonnell's love of Mao's 'little red book' I am sure China would have an ally in a Corbyn government
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,198
    edited February 2019
    Fenman said:

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.


    You think the whole of the South China Sea and its international waters should be ceded to China for good?
    We haven't been able to sustain a Naval presence East of Suez for a half century, apart from the odd frigate in the Gulf and Horn of Afica, and we do not have the ability or capability now. Stick to the Atlantic and Mediterranean IMO.

    HMS Queen Elizabeth would meet the fate of HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales if not part of an organised battlefleet. It is delusional to think otherwise.
    The US already has aircraft carriers like the USS Carl Vinson and the USS George Washington patrolling the South China sea
    UK has more admirals than sailors
    The UK navy has 33 000 regular personnel, over 40,000 including reserves and 2 senior Admirals
    We currently have 41 Admirals and 40 ships.
    Most of those Admirals are Rear Admirals or Vice Admirals not full Admirals
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    4+ children A YEAR???? You'd want more than tax free living!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    Endillion said:

    Chris said:

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because the looney wing of the Tory party doesn't support any of those, so such a referendum would break the Tory party?

    And Tories these days think it's better to break the country than to break the party (not being bright enough to realise that the former implies the latter anyway).
    Where exactly is the majority for May's deal subject to a second referendum? Supporters of that approach recently pulled an amendment designed to get there, explicitly due to lack of support.

    Also Corbyn's proposed approach cannot be described as Norway anything, since that requires freedom of movement, which Labour officially oppose. As May has just pointed out to Corbyn.
    Everyone is dancing on pinheads, and forgetting that the WA got voted down by 230 only three weeks ago.

    There’s precisely no chance, that some meaningless declaration alongside the same Treaty is going to make more than a hundred MPs change their minds about it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    malcolmg said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    Whatever administration happens to be in power it will never be short of commentators who say, “this is the worst administration since De Montfort”, or similar, as the objective is to generate a call to action for its removal and replacement.

    It’s just about the most cliched thing in politics there is.
    Though very accurate in this instance
    I don’t think so. This administration has successfully dealt with one of the biggest fiscal crises the UK state has ever faced, and created the lowest unemployment in over 40 years. The education reforms have been a success, the pension reforms popular, and we’ve turned the corner on new housing builds. We are even now in a position to invest significantly more resources in the NHS.

    I consider it a success.
    The country has stopped bleeding money but has large debts left. Our current account deficit means we rely on foreigners mostly Europeans to fund our debts. We create low paying jobs but fail to invest in assets to support higher paying jobs. Our school system produces average kids. Weak at languages but ok at science. We are solidly mid table but lacking a good coach and starting to bleed talent.
    I don't think this is the case. Money is draining out the country thanks to Brexit.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,406
    Was chatting over the weekend and I’ve noticed something missing from the Nissan everything is fine statements of last week. They all refer to the Qashqai but don’t make any mention of the new Juke which was given to Sunderland in 2015 but the launch of the new model has been delayed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,198
    edited February 2019
    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    If Hungarians, with 1.4 children per mother, had more children and those from Niger, with 7 children per mother, had less that would be a solution to the problem
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,958
    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Agree. We can't operate the economy like a pyramid scheme. No doubt Japan's low birth rate causes some fiscal challenges but I'd bet that 50 years from now it's a more affordable and environmentally sustainable place as a result.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,752
    Endillion said:

    Chris said:

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because the looney wing of the Tory party doesn't support any of those, so such a referendum would break the Tory party?

    And Tories these days think it's better to break the country than to break the party (not being bright enough to realise that the former implies the latter anyway).
    Where exactly is the majority for May's deal subject to a second referendum? Supporters of that approach recently pulled an amendment designed to get there, explicitly due to lack of support.
    I take it there would be a majority in the Commons if the government supported a referendum. But the reason it won't is that a referendum would break the Tory party.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Mr kjh,

    "I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!"

    That might be a struggle as pregnancies usually last nine months. Quintuplets is asking a lot, but isn't it sexist anyway? It takes two to tango and assumes only the woman is responsible for the pregnancy. I foresee unintended consequences.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    4+ children A YEAR???? You'd want more than tax free living!
    Whoops! Yes an offer that I don't think would be taken up by most. Don't know where the 'a year' came from!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,752
    Sandpit said:

    Endillion said:

    Chris said:

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because the looney wing of the Tory party doesn't support any of those, so such a referendum would break the Tory party?

    And Tories these days think it's better to break the country than to break the party (not being bright enough to realise that the former implies the latter anyway).
    Where exactly is the majority for May's deal subject to a second referendum? Supporters of that approach recently pulled an amendment designed to get there, explicitly due to lack of support.

    Also Corbyn's proposed approach cannot be described as Norway anything, since that requires freedom of movement, which Labour officially oppose. As May has just pointed out to Corbyn.
    Everyone is dancing on pinheads, and forgetting that the WA got voted down by 230 only three weeks ago.

    There’s precisely no chance, that some meaningless declaration alongside the same Treaty is going to make more than a hundred MPs change their minds about it.
    How many of the MPs do you think voted as they did on a sober assessment of the merits of the Withdrawal Agreement?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Chris said:

    Endillion said:

    Chris said:

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because the looney wing of the Tory party doesn't support any of those, so such a referendum would break the Tory party?

    And Tories these days think it's better to break the country than to break the party (not being bright enough to realise that the former implies the latter anyway).
    Where exactly is the majority for May's deal subject to a second referendum? Supporters of that approach recently pulled an amendment designed to get there, explicitly due to lack of support.
    I take it there would be a majority in the Commons if the government supported a referendum. But the reason it won't is that a referendum would break the Tory party.
    Not unless the Labour leadership also supports one. I'm not sure which front bench is more opposed right now.

    In any case, it doesn't solve the problem of when to hold such a referendum and what should be on the ballot paper, as leaving off No Deal is a recipe for endless legal challenge.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    eek said:

    Was chatting over the weekend and I’ve noticed something missing from the Nissan everything is fine statements of last week. They all refer to the Qashqai but don’t make any mention of the new Juke which was given to Sunderland in 2015 but the launch of the new model has been delayed.

    The Juke R with 545hp was an interesting idea by Nissan.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Hungarians aren't having children to a replacement rate. They will, quite simply, die out if the birth rate does not improve. I presume Orban wishes for more Magyarország to procreate though he'll have to make the payments regardless of the parent's ethnicity providing they are Hungarian citizens.
  • GDP figures today - I think positive or negative is the only real question...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    4+ children A YEAR???? You'd want more than tax free living!
    They are forgetting the first rule of project management:

    It takes a woman nine months to have a baby. It cannot be done in one month with nine women.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    I don't see May's letter as an outright rejection of Corbyn's offer. I think she intends to concede as little as possible, as late as possible, to get her deal over the line. Problem is, she has a two to one majority against to overturn and she's out of time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    GDP figures today - I think positive or negative is the only real question...

    I think they'll be fine, all the panic stocker-uppers are doubling up on their shopping and decreased productivity from lower inward investment won't yet hit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    Was chatting over the weekend and I’ve noticed something missing from the Nissan everything is fine statements of last week. They all refer to the Qashqai but don’t make any mention of the new Juke which was given to Sunderland in 2015 but the launch of the new model has been delayed.

    The Juke R with 545hp was an interesting idea by Nissan.
    Watched that go up the hill at Goodwood a few years back - utterly bonkers and very sideways! Not sure there’s too much of a market for them though.
  • Mr. Divvie, rather have one at Transport, to be honest.
  • kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    Pulpstar said:

    GDP figures today - I think positive or negative is the only real question...

    I think they'll be fine, all the panic stocker-uppers are doubling up on their shopping and decreased productivity from lower inward investment won't yet hit.
    Sales in custard should swing it positive.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816
    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Hungarians aren't having children to a replacement rate. They will, quite simply, die out if the birth rate does not improve. I presume Orban wishes for more Magyarország to procreate though he'll have to make the payments regardless of the parent's ethnicity providing they are Hungarian citizens.
    I think reducing the world's population desirable. It presents problems, but even if were were to reach equilibrium, we have other problems to solve caused by overpopulation. I would rather have the problems of a reduced population to solve. Of course cloud cuckoo land until all populations can be brought up to a standard of living that stops the need to over produce.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    CD13 said:

    Mr kjh,

    "I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!"

    That might be a struggle as pregnancies usually last nine months. Quintuplets is asking a lot, but isn't it sexist anyway? It takes two to tango and assumes only the woman is responsible for the pregnancy. I foresee unintended consequences.

    I am a big fan of France’s pro fertility tax policy which provides income tax breaks (not handouts) to families depending on number of children.

    It encourages working women (and men) to invest in the rather expensive hobby of child rearing.

    As a result, France has a very decent fertility rate compared to its peers.

    This is a policy I’d expect from an enlightened Tory party, but it would be howled down by left (family is bourgeois) and right (solos shouldn’t subsidise parents) in this country.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    Scott_P said:
    And in Bucks, one man is stood on a box, staring into the bathroom mirror and stating out loud "I AM Napoleon!"
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Hungarians aren't having children to a replacement rate. They will, quite simply, die out if the birth rate does not improve. I presume Orban wishes for more Magyarország to procreate though he'll have to make the payments regardless of the parent's ethnicity providing they are Hungarian citizens.
    I think reducing the world's population desirable. It presents problems, but even if were were to reach equilibrium, we have other problems to solve caused by overpopulation. I would rather have the problems of a reduced population to solve. Of course cloud cuckoo land until all populations can be brought up to a standard of living that stops the need to over produce.
    Err if reducing the world's population is your concern then look to female education in Niger and development of Mali. Hungary, Japan, Italy and some others need their populations to breed more.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    Anything over an average of 2 per mother will cause an exponential growth
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Hungarians aren't having children to a replacement rate. They will, quite simply, die out if the birth rate does not improve. I presume Orban wishes for more Magyarország to procreate though he'll have to make the payments regardless of the parent's ethnicity providing they are Hungarian citizens.
    I think reducing the world's population desirable. It presents problems, but even if were were to reach equilibrium, we have other problems to solve caused by overpopulation. I would rather have the problems of a reduced population to solve. Of course cloud cuckoo land until all populations can be brought up to a standard of living that stops the need to over produce.
    Imagine how much bigger our problems would be today if China had not implemented it one child policy.

    The single biggest act of reducing its carbon footprint by any nation. And do they get any thanks for it from the environmentalists? Those same environmentalists that invariably have their own tribe of snot goblins in tow....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    It's very difficult to push the birth rate above replacement in fully developed western countries (Well not just the west, see Japan). It won't go to 4.
  • Dura_Ace said:



    Yup, we should surrender all our principles to make a quick buck in China.

    That’s definitely the sort of country I want to live in.

    Why do think the RAF operate a joint squadron with the Qataris while, AT THE SAME TIME, bombing ISIS who are funded by Qatar.
    It is the Saudis who are the main funding source for ISIS not Qatar. ISIS should be considered on the Saudi side of the main Middle Eastern fracture whilst Qatar is on the Iranian side.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,042
    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    In the output approach to measuring GDP, growth in the latest quarter was driven by professional, scientific, administration and support services within the services sector, while production and construction both contributed negatively to GDP growth.

    Business investment decreased by 1.4% in Quarter 4 2018, the fourth consecutive quarter in which there has been a decrease in growth.


    http://tinyurl.com/y69478kb
  • Essexit said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Agree. We can't operate the economy like a pyramid scheme. No doubt Japan's low birth rate causes some fiscal challenges but I'd bet that 50 years from now it's a more affordable and environmentally sustainable place as a result.
    I can't see why it would be, cities like Tokyo are growing anyhow, and rents are staying low while living space per person goes up, thanks to the radical oriental technique of letting people build houses.

    Meanwhile the outlying areas are depopulating because young people don't want to live in them - I suppose that would happen slower if there were more kids being born, but I doubt it would stop the general trend.

    That said, I doubt this experiment will happen, since the government has realized they need lots more immigration.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.

    Enviromentally it's the best policy.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816
    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Hungarians aren't having children to a replacement rate. They will, quite simply, die out if the birth rate does not improve. I presume Orban wishes for more Magyarország to procreate though he'll have to make the payments regardless of the parent's ethnicity providing they are Hungarian citizens.
    I think reducing the world's population desirable. It presents problems, but even if were were to reach equilibrium, we have other problems to solve caused by overpopulation. I would rather have the problems of a reduced population to solve. Of course cloud cuckoo land until all populations can be brought up to a standard of living that stops the need to over produce.
    Err if reducing the world's population is your concern then look to female education in Niger and development of Mali. Hungary, Japan, Italy and some others need their populations to breed more.
    I don't disagree with the first point. See my other post on just that very point. Clearly that is the key issue. However (although it is not the key problem) why do these 1st world countries have to breed more? Let's try solving the issues a reducing population raises. Lets not focus on needing the same number or growing numbers of people. What is special about the current number?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816
    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    It's very difficult to push the birth rate above replacement in fully developed western countries (Well not just the west, see Japan). It won't go to 4.
    I know.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    I wouldn’t mind so much them being shits if they were competent. But they’re not that either.

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because Corbyn’s proposal has not been agreed with the EU. If we have a vote it has to be on something that actually exists not on something that might or might not exist.

    Remain or May’s Deal. That should be the choice. No Deal is what we will get. (Probably).
  • Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    Sandpit said:

    Endillion said:

    Chris said:

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because the looney wing of the Tory party doesn't support any of those, so such a referendum would break the Tory party?

    And Tories these days think it's better to break the country than to break the party (not being bright enough to realise that the former implies the latter anyway).
    Where exactly is the majority for May's deal subject to a second referendum? Supporters of that approach recently pulled an amendment designed to get there, explicitly due to lack of support.

    Also Corbyn's proposed approach cannot be described as Norway anything, since that requires freedom of movement, which Labour officially oppose. As May has just pointed out to Corbyn.
    Everyone is dancing on pinheads, and forgetting that the WA got voted down by 230 only three weeks ago.

    There’s precisely no chance, that some meaningless declaration alongside the same Treaty is going to make more than a hundred MPs change their minds about it.
    I think your have hit the nail, or pin on the head. some sort of meaningless fudge where so many climb down without clearly securing anything, every side claiming they will get what they want from the future talks down the road, therefore Mays deal goes through essentially unchanged?

    The answer to that is yes. I’ll say it again, big YES. This is politics, this is precisely what happens.

    I’ll give you evidence. The BBC, old fashioned, amateurish as though they are talking to three year olds have had a go explaining Labours idea of Customs Union.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46891257

    Clear conclusion is there isn’t a clear conclusion, because with nebulous statements from range of sources, its not at all clear what they mean, but is clear cannot know if this unicorn will fly or be binned without a lot of talking with EU about it. Hard for brexiteers to take it apart when its not actually something tangible, worse than that as it becomes tangible it may resemble what May already has in her deal about custom arrangements.

    EU likely to reject Labours custom union proposal further down line as too much of a divergence for them, but by then May and Corbyn have had their way and we have long since left with Mays deal.

    See what I mean?


  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626

    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.

    I reckon it would be pretty tough for homo sapiens to hang on, once the remaining population was all over 70. They'd be your labour pool for your health service. Your farmers. Your clean water providers. Your police, fire, emergency health care. I doubt if we'd last much beyond 80.

    Sounds like a Philip K. Dick novel premise though.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).

    Must keep the prospect of interest rate rises down. Every cloud and all that :D
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816
    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    It's very difficult to push the birth rate above replacement in fully developed western countries (Well not just the west, see Japan). It won't go to 4.
    I know.
    It is the principle really. I don't expect all. most or many Hungarians to start knocking out 4 children (let alone 4 a year!!!!!)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631

    Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).

    Sadly I think that’s right. No matter what views people have on what the relationship with the EU should be like in future, the uncertainty of it so close to the deadline will cause problems for the economy.

    It’s also why the worst of all worlds is to try and extend the deadline - no deal is better than months more of uncertainty over what might or might not happen.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Pulpstar said:

    Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).

    Must keep the prospect of interest rate rises down. Every cloud and all that :D
    Or better still (for home owners), more QE.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    Cyclefree said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    I wouldn’t mind so much them being shits if they were competent. But they’re not that either.

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because Corbyn’s proposal has not been agreed with the EU. If we have a vote it has to be on something that actually exists not on something that might or might not exist.

    Remain or May’s Deal. That should be the choice. No Deal is what we will get. (Probably).
    Depends when the Dreamainers wake up and smell the coffee.
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    Some women having 4 will not make the national average 4.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816

    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.

    I reckon it would be pretty tough for homo sapiens to hang on, once the remaining population was all over 70. They'd be your labour pool for your health service. Your farmers. Your clean water providers. Your police, fire, emergency health care. I doubt if we'd last much beyond 80.

    Sounds like a Philip K. Dick novel premise though.
    Once your all over 70 I would suggest the ability to breed would be problematic
  • Pulpstar said:

    Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).

    Must keep the prospect of interest rate rises down. Every cloud and all that :D
    I suspect the next move in interest rates might be downwards.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    I thought Brexit was bad for these sorts of businesses:

    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1094894165916348416
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    Some women having 4 will not make the national average 4.
    I know - see other posts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).

    Must keep the prospect of interest rate rises down. Every cloud and all that :D
    Or better still (for home owners), more QE.
    Check the graph to the right on the first screen https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/ - real house prices down since 2004.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    Pulpstar said:

    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.

    Enviromentally it's the best policy.
    Insects will vote for it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    kjh said:

    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.

    I reckon it would be pretty tough for homo sapiens to hang on, once the remaining population was all over 70. They'd be your labour pool for your health service. Your farmers. Your clean water providers. Your police, fire, emergency health care. I doubt if we'd last much beyond 80.

    Sounds like a Philip K. Dick novel premise though.
    Once your all over 70 I would suggest the ability to breed would be problematic
    But the premise was that we had all given up/lost the right to reproduce. Similar to the dystopian film Children of Men.

  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    Some women having 4 will not make the national average 4.
    I know - see other posts.
    I'm confused what your issue is then.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    edited February 2019
    Deleted. Messed up block quotes.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816

    kjh said:

    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.

    I reckon it would be pretty tough for homo sapiens to hang on, once the remaining population was all over 70. They'd be your labour pool for your health service. Your farmers. Your clean water providers. Your police, fire, emergency health care. I doubt if we'd last much beyond 80.

    Sounds like a Philip K. Dick novel premise though.
    Once your all over 70 I would suggest the ability to breed would be problematic
    But the premise was that we had all given up/lost the right to reproduce. Similar to the dystopian film Children of Men.

    It was just a poor joke by me.
  • Guardian leading with a monthly GDP figure.

    Or noise, as any sane person might call it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).

    Must keep the prospect of interest rate rises down. Every cloud and all that :D
    Or better still (for home owners), more QE.
    Check the graph to the right on the first screen https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/ - real house prices down since 2004.
    I'd like to see that chart for different types of houses and for different parts of the country.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    Cyclefree said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    I wouldn’t mind so much them being shits if they were competent. But they’re not that either.

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because Corbyn’s proposal has not been agreed with the EU. If we have a vote it has to be on something that actually exists not on something that might or might not exist.

    Remain or May’s Deal. That should be the choice. No Deal is what we will get. (Probably).
    Depends when the Dreamainers wake up and smell the coffee.
    It was the Leavers who voted against the WA. Why should those who never wanted Brexit in the first place get Leavers out of the hole they have dug for themselves?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    Might sound daft, but does December compare to last December. That last week tends to be err... quiet.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So man-child Gavin Williamson is playing the tough guy because he wants to be Tory leader. Anyone who thinks the Chinese will regard sending the UK’s only aircraft carrier to the Pacific as a show of strength knows absolutely nothing about the Chinese. They will consider it a pointless provocation from an ex-imperial power that used to dictate to China but never will again. And they will take it out on British businesses.

    How on esrth have we ended up with a cabinet containing the likes of Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Leadsom, etc? The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer this country. My God, we’re in the do-do.

    This truly is the worst administration since the early 1800s, when the Cabinet was decided by whether you were someone’s uncle, and if you went to the right drinking club.

    A Ministry of all the Shits.
    I wouldn’t mind so much them being shits if they were competent. But they’re not that either.

    Brexit:

    There is no majority for May’s deal.

    There is a majority for May’s deal, subject to it being put to the people.

    There is also probably a majority for Norway plus, now that Corbyn has swung behind it.

    Why not vote: May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Remain?

    Because Corbyn’s proposal has not been agreed with the EU. If we have a vote it has to be on something that actually exists not on something that might or might not exist.

    Remain or May’s Deal. That should be the choice. No Deal is what we will get. (Probably).
    Depends when the Dreamainers wake up and smell the coffee.
    It was the Leavers who voted against the WA. Why should those who never wanted Brexit in the first place get Leavers out of the hole they have dug for themselves?
    Well then, they will have a great spot to watch No Deal Brexit rolled out from up there on the moral high ground....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626
    dots said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I guess I am the only one here to advocate a zero birthrate with the aim of getting rid of our species in just over 100 years time.

    Enviromentally it's the best policy.
    Insects will vote for it.
    Until they are under the Tyranny of the Termites....
  • tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Some pretty poor economic data for December.

    Though similar to other European countries I suspect the political uncertainty had an effect (and is likely to do so for the next few months again).

    Must keep the prospect of interest rate rises down. Every cloud and all that :D
    Or better still (for home owners), more QE.
    Check the graph to the right on the first screen https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/ - real house prices down since 2004.
    I'd like to see that chart for different types of houses and for different parts of the country.
    Nb this graph which is a little bit different:
    https://www.allagents.co.uk/house-prices-adjusted/

    I wonder what deflator they are using
  • Pulpstar said:

    Might sound daft, but does December compare to last December. That last week tends to be err... quiet.

    The monthly data is seasonally adjusted.

    Industrial production is 0.8% lower in December 2018 compared to December 2017 while retail sales are 2.9% higher.

    It may be the British shopper who is keeping a large part of Europe out of recession (the UK trade deficit has widened horribly over the last six months).
  • On topic, what's Beto O'Rourke going to do with all these donors if he doesn't run?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,626

    (the UK trade deficit has widened horribly over the last six months).

    Stockpiling for No Deal?
  • On topic, what's Beto O'Rourke going to do with all these donors if he doesn't run?

    Decide who the next President should be
  • Guardian leading with a monthly GDP figure.

    Or noise, as any sane person might call it.

    But the noise is similar to the other economic data - both in the UK and other European countries.

    And we are due another recession.
  • On topic, what's Beto O'Rourke going to do with all these donors if he doesn't run?

    My guess would be Sherood Brown
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited February 2019
    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Hungarians aren't having children to a replacement rate. They will, quite simply, die out if the birth rate does not improve. I presume Orban wishes for more Magyarország to procreate though he'll have to make the payments regardless of the parent's ethnicity providing they are Hungarian citizens.
    I think reducing the world's population desirable. It presents problems, but even if were were to reach equilibrium, we have other problems to solve caused by overpopulation. I would rather have the problems of a reduced population to solve. Of course cloud cuckoo land until all populations can be brought up to a standard of living that stops the need to over produce.
    Err if reducing the world's population is your concern then look to female education in Niger and development of Mali. Hungary, Japan, Italy and some others need their populations to breed more.
    I don't disagree with the first point. See my other post on just that very point. Clearly that is the key issue. However (although it is not the key problem) why do these 1st world countries have to breed more? Let's try solving the issues a reducing population raises. Lets not focus on needing the same number or growing numbers of people. What is special about the current number?
    I agree that we should look to managing a decline in the world population. One small change would be to emphasise different measures of economic performance that aren't distorted by population growth/decline. Like using GDP per capita rather than GDP.

    However, a slow decline in population will be easier to manage than a rapid crash, so you might want to think about why the birth rate is so low in some countries.

    That said, if the scientists working on the fundamentals of human longevity were to make dramatic breakthroughs it would blow apart our current forecasts for a peak in global population and we'd be in all sorts of trouble.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Raising child to mother ratio from 1.4 is not exponential reproduction.
    If you change it to 4 per mother the growth of population is exponential
    Some women having 4 will not make the national average 4.
    I know - see other posts.
    I'm confused what your issue is then.
    OK my issue is one of principle. Governments seem hell bent on growing populations to cope with providing economic growth and providing for society, needing and endless supply of more young to cope with the growing number of elderly. It is an endless spiral. We need to stop this and look at a different solution. We need to stop the worlds population growth and even reduce it to a more sustainable level. The 3rd world is the problem (as it has always been) for economic reasons. Although Hungary, Italy, Japan, Ireland, etc have a reducing population issue they should look at more imaginative ways of solving the problems it causes rather than knocking out more babies.

    The default reaction to the economic issues of a reduced population brings, is more population. It shouldn't be.

    I have no idea what the Hungarian policy will do and if it stays below or at 2 per mother on average there won't be a population issue, but I consider a reduced population as positive even if challenging economically.
  • (the UK trade deficit has widened horribly over the last six months).

    Stockpiling for No Deal?
    I doubt it - UK industrial production would be increasing if that was the case.

    The trade deficit is increasing because we're buying ever more imported consumer tat.

    I'm sure someone will look at the data in detail to give a more precise answer.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,816

    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kjh said:

    I see that Hungary whose population apparently is dropping by 32,000 a year is offering mothers freedom from income tax for life if they have 4+ children a year. Sigh!

    We have to look at a different solution to the problems caused by changes in demography other than exponential reproduction which is/will cause far more serious problems to the planet.

    Hungarians aren't having children to a replacement rate. They will, quite simply, die out if the birth rate does not improve. I presume Orban wishes for more Magyarország to procreate though he'll have to make the payments regardless of the parent's ethnicity providing they are Hungarian citizens.
    I think reducing the world's population desirable. It presents problems, but even if were were to reach equilibrium, we have other problems to solve caused by overpopulation. I would rather have the problems of a reduced population to solve. Of course cloud cuckoo land until all populations can be brought up to a standard of living that stops the need to over produce.
    Err if reducing the world's population is your concern then look to female education in Niger and development of Mali. Hungary, Japan, Italy and some others need their populations to breed more.
    I don't disagree with the first point. See my other post on just that very point. Clearly that is the key issue. However (although it is not the key problem) why do these 1st world countries have to breed more? Let's try solving the issues a reducing population raises. Lets not focus on needing the same number or growing numbers of people. What is special about the current number?
    I agree that we should look to managing a decline in the world population. One small change would be to emphasise different measures of economic performance that aren't distorted by population growth/decline. Like using GDP per capita rather than GDP.

    However, a slow decline in population will be easier to manage than a rapid crash, so you might want to think about why the birth rate is so low in some countries.

    That said, if the scientists working on the fundamentals of human longevity were to make dramatic breakthroughs it would blow apart our current forecasts for a peak in global population and we'd be in all sorts of trouble.
    +1 particularly point on rapid crash.
  • On the economic figures, obviously these aren't very encouraging GDP figures. But note (a) they're just one quarter and (b) they might well be revised.

    The longer term decline in business investment is worrying.
  • The absolute growth per year in the world population is now slowing down.
This discussion has been closed.