Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
That'll be vascular dementia rather than Alzheimer's presumably
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Doubtful as most smokers probably die before being old enough to get dementia, the cause of the increase in dementia is nothing more than medical science keeping people alive too long. Dementia was not a big issue in the 70's and 80's when more people smoked
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
If it doesn't happen it is a choice, not a necessity.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
Doctors that are once more balloting for strike action based on pay
Danes back for more Danegeld.
Labour asked for this when they folded last year.
Fuck them. Negotiate and get something from them rather than just roll over.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Got 50 % of the vote ahead of Reform on 27.7 (it was a two seat ward, another Ind came in second AT 44.3). He had even more of the vote in 2021.
A bit surprising really - people do change party all the time in local government, but that is very soon, and in my experience people elected as Independents with a big majority tend to stay that way.
Great result he had in 2017 though, what competition in the seat!
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
Regarding care at home, you can't leave someone with dementia alone once they've reached a certain stage and being woken up throughout the night day after day isn't feasible when people have jobs or school.
You're right. The last time I visited someone in a dementia ward in an NHS hospital, it was a 6-bedded bay with two nurses standing in the opening at all times and other nurses nearby within call.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
If it doesn't happen it is a choice, not a necessity.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
Doctors that are once more balloting for strike action based on pay
Danes back for more Danegeld.
Labour asked for this when they folded last year.
Fuck them. Negotiate and get something from them rather than just roll over.
The chances of starmer doing that is approximately zero and I am sure the train drivers wont be far behind
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Doubtful as most smokers probably die before being old enough to get dementia, the cause of the increase in dementia is nothing more than medical science keeping people alive too long. Dementia was not a big issue in the 70's and 80's when more people smoked
That's why I said age-specific. An 80 year old now has a significantly lower risk of dementia now than they did back then, believe it or not.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
If it doesn't happen it is a choice, not a necessity.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
Doctors that are once more balloting for strike action based on pay
Danes back for more Danegeld.
Labour asked for this when they folded last year.
Fuck them. Negotiate and get something from them rather than just roll over.
The chances of starmer doing that is approximately zero and I am sure the train drivers wont be far behind
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
That'll be vascular dementia rather than Alzheimer's presumably
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Well on the local Facebook groups I’d say it’s about 60/40 against.
He’s lost the Pink haired, they/them, nose ring, Keffiyeh wearers from the trendy village nearby for sure.
Unusually for this Durham election there wasn't a Ref candidate in the ward, so maybe he was unofficially picking up a lot of support that would have otherwise gone to the party.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
You're very like HYUFD on that front.
Find one stat/report backing one point of view and that's then the gospel truth regardless of how many stats/reports/evidence shows the contrary.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
I think the difficulty here is that we sacrifice a very large chunk of our GDP on it already via care from relatives. The discussions about inactivity reminded me of this - just look at the millions of working age people providing sometimes 24/7 care for their friends and family.
And it's not just old people. My council spends an extraordinary amount of cash on young people with severe learning difficulties, the example, and one of my councillors pointed out it would much, much worse were it not for the outstanding commitment of their parents, some of whom are in their 80s themselves.
In the round, it's probably better value for money to do it on a communal basis, simply from a carer ratio and housing perspective. I guess I'm arguing for a massive expansion in public spending on care, which isn't my instinct at all but...
Back in the early 1960s, people with learning difficulties could be gainfully employed doing mundane jobs. Every hospital had its own laundry, for instance, which gave the people a useful job in a caring environment. Automation has altered our society in many ways not for the better. There was talk on here this morning about 'entry-level jobs' going to AI so no-one can access to the next step up. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
You're very like HYUFD on that front.
Find one stat/report backing one point of view and that's then the gospel truth regardless of how many stats/reports/evidence shows the contrary.
You'll be pleased to know it's different stars then!
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That's a 50% increase in life expectancy. 50% is very statistically significant.
And that 50% will include some people not making it any further and some people living 10 or 20 years more because of modern medicine.
And many of those living 10 or 20 years more are those now getting dementia.
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Got 50 % of the vote ahead of Reform on 27.7 (it was a two seat ward, another Ind came in second AT 44.3). He had even more of the vote in 2021.
A bit surprising really - people do change party all the time in local government, but that is very soon, and in my experience people elected as Independents with a big majority tend to stay that way.
Great result he had in 2017 though, what competition in the seat!
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Got 50 % of the vote ahead of Reform on 27.7 (it was a two seat ward, another Ind came in second AT 44.3). He had even more of the vote in 2021.
A bit surprising really - people do change party all the time in local government, but that is very soon, and in my experience people elected as Independents with a big majority tend to stay that way.
Great result he had in 2017 though, what competition in the seat!
Both independents have a huge personal vote and I’d say it is not very Reformy this part of Durham North. The independents also held on in Lumley.
It was a real shock, especially when the two independents here got into an online spat with a Reform candidate in the neighbouring seat over Doctored pictures some felt made out the Reform candidate was taking credit for the commemorative bench the independents put in to honour our Olympic medalist.
The only time I’ve ever voted Conservative in my life, in spite of what that guy with the Herbie avatar thinks, was for Allan Bainbridge the election after. He was an excellent councillor.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
It’s not overly surprising - if the Anglo Saxons had managed to turf out the Normans I think they might have little pity for Norman landowners being offered an escape in Sicily under another Norman offshoot.
I have a lot of Saffer friends and know a lot of “English” Saffers and Afrikaaners and whilst a lot of the Afrikaaners I know are great, usually those younger ones who grew up in the cities and travelled, I’ve met a lot who are still trapped in the past in their “glory days”.
This “asylum” issue is not going to build any fences or help those left in SA.
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Well on the local Facebook groups I’d say it’s about 60/40 against.
He’s lost the Pink haired, they/them, nose ring, Keffiyeh wearers from the trendy village nearby for sure.
Unusually for this Durham election there wasn't a Ref candidate in the ward, so maybe he was unofficially picking up a lot of support that would have otherwise gone to the party.
There wasn’t one, there were two. Dr Geoff Dovaston and Adele Taggart. Both got around 700 votes iIrc.
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Well on the local Facebook groups I’d say it’s about 60/40 against.
He’s lost the Pink haired, they/them, nose ring, Keffiyeh wearers from the trendy village nearby for sure.
Unusually for this Durham election there wasn't a Ref candidate in the ward, so maybe he was unofficially picking up a lot of support that would have otherwise gone to the party.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
I have long believed that the reciprocity fairness norm explains much of modern politics. Farage has an instinctive understanding of it. He appreciates that, whatever the story, voters think that someone is taking out what they themselves put in. He is simply better at appreciating this fundamental part of human nature than any other modern political figure, apart perhaps from Donald Trump. In particular, Farage appreciates that people feel differently about members of their own tribe (which for a lot of people is either an ethnic or national grouping) than they do about others.
It was fascinating that Starmer, in trying to match Farage, talked this week of how “the obligations we owe to each other” required the enforcement of rules in a diverse society, to avoid the country becoming an “island of strangers”. This captured precisely the way people feel. Whether it was authentic is another matter.
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Well on the local Facebook groups I’d say it’s about 60/40 against.
He’s lost the Pink haired, they/them, nose ring, Keffiyeh wearers from the trendy village nearby for sure.
Unusually for this Durham election there wasn't a Ref candidate in the ward, so maybe he was unofficially picking up a lot of support that would have otherwise gone to the party.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
I think the difficulty here is that we sacrifice a very large chunk of our GDP on it already via care from relatives. The discussions about inactivity reminded me of this - just look at the millions of working age people providing sometimes 24/7 care for their friends and family.
And it's not just old people. My council spends an extraordinary amount of cash on young people with severe learning difficulties, the example, and one of my councillors pointed out it would much, much worse were it not for the outstanding commitment of their parents, some of whom are in their 80s themselves.
In the round, it's probably better value for money to do it on a communal basis, simply from a carer ratio and housing perspective. I guess I'm arguing for a massive expansion in public spending on care, which isn't my instinct at all but...
Back in the early 1960s, people with learning difficulties could be gainfully employed doing mundane jobs. Every hospital had its own laundry, for instance, which gave the people a useful job in a caring environment. Automation has altered our society in many ways not for the better. There was talk on here this morning about 'entry-level jobs' going to AI so no-one can access to the next step up. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
The one that always amuses me is because it happened that new jobs were created when we had the industrialial revolution which replaced a lot of more manual labour that it will happen again with ai
points
1) you are basing it on a single data point
2) Humans do manual work, knowledge work, creative work. The industrial revolution largely replaced most manual work, people moved to knowledge work such as clerks in offices but some couldn't as not even the intelligence. The ai revolution will replace that sort of brain work leaving only creative work for most. Now call me a bigot if you like but not convinced 90% of the human race is fit to do creative work
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Well on the local Facebook groups I’d say it’s about 60/40 against.
He’s lost the Pink haired, they/them, nose ring, Keffiyeh wearers from the trendy village nearby for sure.
Unusually for this Durham election there wasn't a Ref candidate in the ward, so maybe he was unofficially picking up a lot of support that would have otherwise gone to the party.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
That's good news.
To turn it on its head, maybe public policy simply needs to be geared to everyone dying peacefully in their sleep between the ages of about 90 to 100 which, aside from those desperate to get a birthday card from the King, is probably what most of us want.
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Well on the local Facebook groups I’d say it’s about 60/40 against.
He’s lost the Pink haired, they/them, nose ring, Keffiyeh wearers from the trendy village nearby for sure.
Unusually for this Durham election there wasn't a Ref candidate in the ward, so maybe he was unofficially picking up a lot of support that would have otherwise gone to the party.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
I think a political betting discussion might be needed. There's not really been one for ages.
So in the great tradition, although really rather letting it down...
** Betting Post **
Next LD leader. Oppose Daisy Cooper to be next LD leader - currently 1.57. Unfortunately my confidence suggests pennies rather than pound for this bet.
** End Betting Post **
Where are the LDs going to find their next leader? Davey is just some sort of sodden log with a chalked on smiley face. Daisy Cooper is actually less inspiring.
The LDs will clearly have a next leader at some point, so there really may be 1000/1 winners out there.
I can't find a bet. Can you?
Your well-known antipathy to Davey and other senior members of the Party notwithstanding, the question has to be the circumstances under which Davey would step down?
It's hard to think, apart from a short break between 2015 and 2017, Davey has been in the Commons since 1997 - he got elected when 29 so not as young as Charles Kennedy but not far off it. Will he be leader for the whole of this parliament or stand down in 2027 (assuming the next election is 2028 or even later?).
The cohort of MPs elected in 2024 contain some impressive individuals and I can see why the likes of Helen Maguire, Josh Babarinde and Bobby Dean are all in the market. That has weakened Daisy Cooper's position - nothing hurts like success as someone probably didn't once say.
That said, she's in a safe enough seat and has the benefit of experience and if one of Davey's stunts went really badly wrong, she'd probably win any vote now and she probably would if Davey chose to stand down in 2027 or 2028.
So much depends on where the party will be after the next election - I don't have a clue and neither does anyone else if we are being honest.
If she keeps her seat, Jess Brown Fuller would be my idea of the leader after next.
I think when I visit friends houses I probably ask for directions to the loo/lav/facilities/toilet - in roughly that order of likelihood.
In restaurants I tend to go with and enquiry as to the lavatories, then nearly always have to just go with a follow up of 'toilets'.
In restaurants I usually find myself asking for "the bathroom" as the first time I had enough money to go to restaurants regularly I was living in the US. In people's houses though I say loo or toilet interchangeably, I know it's meant to be a marker of class but I seem to be on the fence.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
I have long believed that the reciprocity fairness norm explains much of modern politics. Farage has an instinctive understanding of it. He appreciates that, whatever the story, voters think that someone is taking out what they themselves put in. He is simply better at appreciating this fundamental part of human nature than any other modern political figure, apart perhaps from Donald Trump. In particular, Farage appreciates that people feel differently about members of their own tribe (which for a lot of people is either an ethnic or national grouping) than they do about others.
It was fascinating that Starmer, in trying to match Farage, talked this week of how “the obligations we owe to each other” required the enforcement of rules in a diverse society, to avoid the country becoming an “island of strangers”. This captured precisely the way people feel. Whether it was authentic is another matter.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
More institutional corruption incoming FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is proposing changes to the statutes of motorsport's governing body that appear to further extend his control...
the list of presidential candidates and their teams, which are strictly defined, is monitored by the FIA's nominations committee.
If it finds any ethical issues with a list, it would refer the matter to the FIA's ethics committee.
Both bodies are controlled by the FIA president and his allies, following changes to the statutes made by Ben Sulayem last year.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
More institutional corruption incoming FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is proposing changes to the statutes of motorsport's governing body that appear to further extend his control...
the list of presidential candidates and their teams, which are strictly defined, is monitored by the FIA's nominations committee.
If it finds any ethical issues with a list, it would refer the matter to the FIA's ethics committee.
Both bodies are controlled by the FIA president and his allies, following changes to the statutes made by Ben Sulayem last year.
I think when I visit friends houses I probably ask for directions to the loo/lav/facilities/toilet - in roughly that order of likelihood.
In restaurants I tend to go with and enquiry as to the lavatories, then nearly always have to just go with a follow up of 'toilets'.
In restaurants I usually find myself asking for "the bathroom" as the first time I had enough money to go to restaurants regularly I was living in the US. In people's houses though I say loo or toilet interchangeably, I know it's meant to be a marker of class but I seem to be on the fence.
You can avoid the risk of a social faux pas by just holding it in until you get home of course.
Otherwise ask for the pisser or just look for the signs or see where everyone else disappears to for varying lengths of time who aren’t dressed as bar staff/Waiting staff - it’s either going to be the “WC” or something fun.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
The over 90s population in the UK has increased by about 200% since 30 years ago.
First 50% then 200% are tiny. You and I have differing definitions of the word tiny.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
Which, um, sort of explains why they might want to flee.
Basically 'How dare they say they are persecuted?' alongside 'And they are lucky they are getting away as we are and will be coming after them'
I don't know if the refugee designation is fair or not, but the ANC will probably make it an easy decision to defend given there's plenty in South Africa who would go even further than them in rhetoric.
As @Omnium has chided us for not talking about betting and politics, I've glanced at the prices for the next Conservative leader.
With two of the front four in the betting (Johnson and Farage) ineligible currently, best prices are Jenrick at 11/4 and Cleverly at 9/2. Some see the latter as a possible Mayoral candidate in London but the poll yesterday suggested Labour would still eke out a win over the Conservatives and Reform and if they have a candidate other than Sadiq Khan, I suspect Labour would win cosily,
Among the lesser known MPs, Mike Wood is on offer at 16s - he stands for what looks as safe a Conservative seat as anywhere currently while the problem with Coutinho at 20s may be her previous links to Rishi Sunak.
Further down the list, what about Ben Spencer at 50s?
I have long believed that the reciprocity fairness norm explains much of modern politics. Farage has an instinctive understanding of it. He appreciates that, whatever the story, voters think that someone is taking out what they themselves put in. He is simply better at appreciating this fundamental part of human nature than any other modern political figure, apart perhaps from Donald Trump. In particular, Farage appreciates that people feel differently about members of their own tribe (which for a lot of people is either an ethnic or national grouping) than they do about others.
It was fascinating that Starmer, in trying to match Farage, talked this week of how “the obligations we owe to each other” required the enforcement of rules in a diverse society, to avoid the country becoming an “island of strangers”. This captured precisely the way people feel. Whether it was authentic is another matter.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
I think the difficulty here is that we sacrifice a very large chunk of our GDP on it already via care from relatives. The discussions about inactivity reminded me of this - just look at the millions of working age people providing sometimes 24/7 care for their friends and family.
And it's not just old people. My council spends an extraordinary amount of cash on young people with severe learning difficulties, the example, and one of my councillors pointed out it would much, much worse were it not for the outstanding commitment of their parents, some of whom are in their 80s themselves.
In the round, it's probably better value for money to do it on a communal basis, simply from a carer ratio and housing perspective. I guess I'm arguing for a massive expansion in public spending on care, which isn't my instinct at all but...
Back in the early 1960s, people with learning difficulties could be gainfully employed doing mundane jobs. Every hospital had its own laundry, for instance, which gave the people a useful job in a caring environment. Automation has altered our society in many ways not for the better. There was talk on here this morning about 'entry-level jobs' going to AI so no-one can access to the next step up. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
The one that always amuses me is because it happened that new jobs were created when we had the industrialial revolution which replaced a lot of more manual labour that it will happen again with ai
points
1) you are basing it on a single data point
2) Humans do manual work, knowledge work, creative work. The industrial revolution largely replaced most manual work, people moved to knowledge work such as clerks in offices but some couldn't as not even the intelligence. The ai revolution will replace that sort of brain work leaving only creative work for most. Now call me a bigot if you like but not convinced 90% of the human race is fit to do creative work
Yes, I agree. We're back to the idea of surplus people, aren't we? What's the point of them?
I'm a totally uncreative person myself. Just the way I am.
More institutional corruption incoming FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is proposing changes to the statutes of motorsport's governing body that appear to further extend his control...
the list of presidential candidates and their teams, which are strictly defined, is monitored by the FIA's nominations committee.
If it finds any ethical issues with a list, it would refer the matter to the FIA's ethics committee.
Both bodies are controlled by the FIA president and his allies, following changes to the statutes made by Ben Sulayem last year.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
No they are fleeing the ANC confiscation of their family farms often without compensation.
Trump is right on this, the ANC are treating farmers even worse than Starmer
The offer is open to any Afrikaaner, not specifically to farmers, so very few are landowners.
Under the new land law, land can only be taken without compensation in unusual circumstances,
"The new law allows for expropriation without compensation only in circumstances where it is "just and equitable and in the public interest" to do so.
This includes if the property is not being used and there's no intention to either develop or make money from it or when it poses a risk to people.
The president's spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that, under the law, the state "may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than... in the public interest"."
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
No they are fleeing the ANC confiscation of their family farms often without compensation.
Trump is right on this, the ANC are treating farmers even worse than Starmer
The offer is open to any Afrikaaner, not specifically to farmers, so very few are landowners.
Under the new land law, land can only be taken without compensation in unusual circumstances,
"The new law allows for expropriation without compensation only in circumstances where it is "just and equitable and in the public interest" to do so.
This includes if the property is not being used and there's no intention to either develop or make money from it or when it poses a risk to people.
The president's spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that, under the law, the state "may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than... in the public interest"."
That language does look awfully broad in fairness.
Lots of laws are like that, often perfectly reasonable in practice but if you wanted you could easily misuse it, since governments want to ensure they have wide discretion to act. Which can mean they don't get amended when new governments get in, since of course they won't abuse it even if the last lot did.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
No they are fleeing the ANC confiscation of their family farms often without compensation.
Trump is right on this, the ANC are treating farmers even worse than Starmer
The offer is open to any Afrikaaner, not specifically to farmers, so very few are landowners.
Under the new land law, land can only be taken without compensation in unusual circumstances,
"The new law allows for expropriation without compensation only in circumstances where it is "just and equitable and in the public interest" to do so.
This includes if the property is not being used and there's no intention to either develop or make money from it or when it poses a risk to people.
The president's spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that, under the law, the state "may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than... in the public interest"."
One wonders about the wisdom of fleeing to a country where the president wishes to do away with habeas corpus.
I have long believed that the reciprocity fairness norm explains much of modern politics. Farage has an instinctive understanding of it. He appreciates that, whatever the story, voters think that someone is taking out what they themselves put in. He is simply better at appreciating this fundamental part of human nature than any other modern political figure, apart perhaps from Donald Trump. In particular, Farage appreciates that people feel differently about members of their own tribe (which for a lot of people is either an ethnic or national grouping) than they do about others.
It was fascinating that Starmer, in trying to match Farage, talked this week of how “the obligations we owe to each other” required the enforcement of rules in a diverse society, to avoid the country becoming an “island of strangers”. This captured precisely the way people feel. Whether it was authentic is another matter.
All politicians talk like this, rights and responsibilities, the social contract, and so on.
Yeah, but that doesn't make it wrong. I've a lot of time for Danny the Fink and this is as sharp as he usually is. God, a Tory party led by Osborne and him would have something to say, something that would be worth hearing.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.
No they are fleeing the ANC confiscation of their family farms often without compensation.
Trump is right on this, the ANC are treating farmers even worse than Starmer
The offer is open to any Afrikaaner, not specifically to farmers, so very few are landowners.
Under the new land law, land can only be taken without compensation in unusual circumstances,
"The new law allows for expropriation without compensation only in circumstances where it is "just and equitable and in the public interest" to do so.
This includes if the property is not being used and there's no intention to either develop or make money from it or when it poses a risk to people.
The president's spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that, under the law, the state "may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than... in the public interest"."
One wonders about the wisdom of fleeing to a country where the president wishes to do away with habeas corpus.
Well if you are living in a country where the power grid routinely goes down for many hours each day....
I think a political betting discussion might be needed. There's not really been one for ages.
So in the great tradition, although really rather letting it down...
** Betting Post **
Next LD leader. Oppose Daisy Cooper to be next LD leader - currently 1.57. Unfortunately my confidence suggests pennies rather than pound for this bet.
** End Betting Post **
Where are the LDs going to find their next leader? Davey is just some sort of sodden log with a chalked on smiley face. Daisy Cooper is actually less inspiring.
The LDs will clearly have a next leader at some point, so there really may be 1000/1 winners out there.
I can't find a bet. Can you?
Your well-known antipathy to Davey and other senior members of the Party notwithstanding, the question has to be the circumstances under which Davey would step down?
It's hard to think, apart from a short break between 2015 and 2017, Davey has been in the Commons since 1997 - he got elected when 29 so not as young as Charles Kennedy but not far off it. Will he be leader for the whole of this parliament or stand down in 2027 (assuming the next election is 2028 or even later?).
The cohort of MPs elected in 2024 contain some impressive individuals and I can see why the likes of Helen Maguire, Josh Babarinde and Bobby Dean are all in the market. That has weakened Daisy Cooper's position - nothing hurts like success as someone probably didn't once say.
That said, she's in a safe enough seat and has the benefit of experience and if one of Davey's stunts went really badly wrong, she'd probably win any vote now and she probably would if Davey chose to stand down in 2027 or 2028.
So much depends on where the party will be after the next election - I don't have a clue and neither does anyone else if we are being honest.
If she keeps her seat, Jess Brown Fuller would be my idea of the leader after next.
I see Davey staying long enough to have aimed to create a platform which will survive him without collapse. A number of people with less than 5 years in Parliament is not that.
There's still a notable possibility that Labour may do badly enough at the next election to require a coalition - which is a different conversation.
Plus his "official retirement age" is 67, which will be Christmas Day 2032.
Quite a sinister sounding statement from the ANC, saying that Afrikaner refugees are “fleeing from justice, equality and accountability for historic privilege”.of
The Tories and Reform need to STFU and stop repeating this lie .
People over the age of 25 are not youths!
I think Farage should back the scheme, as long as it is limited to 18-23 year olds, ie student ages. No one that voted Leave in order to control immigration was inspired by student gap year types. It would do wonders for Reform's youth vote
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
If you don't follow politics closely it is a bit of a head scratcher. Boris and the Brexit gang turbo charging net migration followed by remain pinup Starmer slashing it.
Er, no ducks. Starmer's very best outcome is a modest decline to still historically high levels. Nobody will notice anything except more people.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
Thinking about the politics of immigration earlier, as I often tend to do, it struck me that you could say immigration sceptic voters consider the quality of life, public services etc in the past to have been 8/10, the present is 5/10 and they put that three point drop down to immigration, where as politicians, whilst agreeing that it has gone from 8/10 to 5/10 say it would be 2/10 had it not been for mass immigration... but the voters will never believe them
Thinking about the politics of immigration earlier, as I often tend to do, it struck me that you could say immigration sceptic voters consider the quality of life, public services etc in the past to have been 8/10, the present is 5/10 and they put that three point drop down to immigration, where as politicians, whilst agreeing that it has gone from 8/10 to 5/10 say it would be 2/10 had it not been for mass immigration... but the voters will never believe them
True but realistically even if immigration was cut to zero today we’d still need significantly increased taxation to get back to the level of public services people want
I've found a fancy restaurant for dinner tonight. I'm having a four course tasting menu
The first course was a celeriac slaw in a lovely dressing, topped with salmon roe and a horseradish foam, served with a white wine called Orgasmique that's a muscat/grenache blend
I have no idea what awaits for the next three courses..
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
No point arguing with him he still believes housing has been growing faster than population
Oh I've got some even better stats up my sleeve on that front.
Post away because its obvious you are wrong and we will happily pick holes in the argument that since 2000 we built more homes than we imported people
Well, that's different to growing faster. Which is it?
Evidence that there are more homes per capita than there were back in 2000
Number of homes per person in 2000 = 0.43 Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
Does this take empty residences being used as investments into account?
I think that number is even smaller than a rounding error, though imo they should be subjected to a multiple of Council Tax, like second dwellings can be.
And if they are overseas owned, they are subject to I think a 2% Stamp Duty surcharge, and an ATED Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings, which is around 1% if the property is worth £500k or more.
I've found a fancy restaurant for dinner tonight. I'm having a four course tasting menu
The first course was a celeriac slaw in a lovely dressing, topped with salmon roe and a horseradish foam, served with a white wine called Orgasmique that's a muscat/grenache blend
I have no idea what awaits for the next three courses..
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
It all compounds though, doesn't it.
Better at keeping people alive in their 80s compounds with the fact people were better kept alive in their 70s, and 60s, and ...
Compound all that, and we now have magnitudes more people alive at a very old age (not just old age) that we would not have in the past, that need care today that was not needed in the past, as they wouldn't have made it to this age in the past.
Yes people made it to 70 in the past. 70 is not old today.
Not to forget the dementia is a progressive and vicious beast. Being in the early stages, versus very late stages, are not the same thing and more people today can survive into the awful very late stages.
The tramps in London seem different this week. They suddenly resemble the San Fransico zombies. Made me wonder if fentanyl finally found its way here
Interestingly, the new mayor has really cleaned up San Francisco. I was there two weeks ago, and the number of homeless zombies is down 80%. They're still around, but in far fewer numbers than before.
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
If you don't follow politics closely it is a bit of a head scratcher. Boris and the Brexit gang turbo charging net migration followed by remain pinup Starmer slashing it.
Er, no ducks. Starmer's very best outcome is a modest decline to still historically high levels. Nobody will notice anything except more people.
It's a bit like an electrician quoting £10k for a job that should be £2500, then another one coming in and saying "He's trying to have you over over there, I only charge five grand". People will think they are both wankers
As in "which British Prime Minister was most f@#*ing stupid?"
(All PMs are brought down by their inadequacies. What made Boris's collapse special was how dismal his fatal lies ended up being. That is a special kind of stupid.)
I've found a fancy restaurant for dinner tonight. I'm having a four course tasting menu
The first course was a celeriac slaw in a lovely dressing, topped with salmon roe and a horseradish foam, served with a white wine called Orgasmique that's a muscat/grenache blend
I have no idea what awaits for the next three courses..
As long as it’s not the same for the next three courses it sounds like you are in good hands.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
Sadly, the first faculty to go is the ability to judge one's own faculties.
I've found a fancy restaurant for dinner tonight. I'm having a four course tasting menu
The first course was a celeriac slaw in a lovely dressing, topped with salmon roe and a horseradish foam, served with a white wine called Orgasmique that's a muscat/grenache blend
I have no idea what awaits for the next three courses..
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Life expectancy at older ages had hardly changed over the last 150 years though. The reason you have more 90 year olds now is because of better healthcare provision earlier on, not because we've got better at keeping octogenarians alive.
We've become considerably better at keeping octogenarians alive.
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
We haven't, sorry. An 85 year old in 1841 had a life expectancy of 4 years. We've bumped that up to 6 in 190 years.
That seems like a reasonably significant increase, given that the chances of dying soon at that age, particularly for men, are relatively high. On top of which more people are making that age in the first place.
I guess so, but it hardly explains the increase in problems with dementia. The change in the last 30 years or so is tiny.
In 1950 the percentage of people who reached 80 was 0.6% now its over 5%.....therefore the increase in dementia and has substantially increased in percentage since 1990
(It must be a lot higher than 5%?)
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
It all compounds though, doesn't it.
Better at keeping people alive in their 80s compounds with the fact people were better kept alive in their 70s, and 60s, and ...
Compound all that, and we now have magnitudes more people alive at a very old age (not just old age) that we would not have in the past, that need care today that was not needed in the past, as they wouldn't have made it to this age in the past.
Yes people made it to 70 in the past. 70 is not old today.
Not to forget the dementia is a progressive and vicious beast. Being in the early stages, versus very late stages, are not the same thing and more people today can survive into the awful very late stages.
Yes, I'd agree with that. This is what I mean by a changing demographic structure not really being the underlying driver of health spending - you could have a younger population, and a lower age-specific rate of dementia, and still have costs growing fast due to our ability to keep people in late stage dementia going on far, far longer than we used to.
It does feel wrong, at some level. I'm no sure assisted dying is the answer, but we should not make casks of people.
More institutional corruption incoming FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is proposing changes to the statutes of motorsport's governing body that appear to further extend his control...
the list of presidential candidates and their teams, which are strictly defined, is monitored by the FIA's nominations committee.
If it finds any ethical issues with a list, it would refer the matter to the FIA's ethics committee.
Both bodies are controlled by the FIA president and his allies, following changes to the statutes made by Ben Sulayem last year.
Comments
Labour asked for this when they folded last year.
Fuck them. Negotiate and get something from them rather than just roll over.
A bit surprising really - people do change party all the time in local government, but that is very soon, and in my experience people elected as Independents with a big majority tend to stay that way.
Great result he had in 2017 though, what competition in the seat!
Former death sentences like cancer are treated much better today.
https://x.com/mystisk_za/status/1922262192415477892
He’s lost the Pink haired, they/them, nose ring, Keffiyeh wearers from the trendy village nearby for sure.
Back to the seventies we go……
Find one stat/report backing one point of view and that's then the gospel truth regardless of how many stats/reports/evidence shows the contrary.
And that 50% will include some people not making it any further and some people living 10 or 20 years more because of modern medicine.
And many of those living 10 or 20 years more are those now getting dementia.
It was a real shock, especially when the two independents here got into an online spat with a Reform candidate in the neighbouring seat over Doctored pictures some felt made out the Reform candidate was taking credit for the commemorative bench the independents put in to honour our Olympic medalist.
The only time I’ve ever voted Conservative in my life, in spite of what that guy with the Herbie avatar thinks, was for Allan Bainbridge the election after. He was an excellent councillor.
I have a lot of Saffer friends and know a lot of “English” Saffers and Afrikaaners and whilst a lot of the Afrikaaners I know are great, usually those younger ones who grew up in the cities and travelled, I’ve met a lot who are still trapped in the past in their “glory days”.
This “asylum” issue is not going to build any fences or help those left in SA.
https://www.durham.gov.uk/countyelectionresults2025#Chester-le-StreetSouth
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x93m5ma
I have long believed that the reciprocity fairness norm explains much of modern politics. Farage has an instinctive understanding of it. He appreciates that, whatever the story, voters think that someone is taking out what they themselves put in. He is simply better at appreciating this fundamental part of human nature than any other modern political figure, apart perhaps from Donald Trump.
In particular, Farage appreciates that people feel differently about members of their own tribe (which for a lot of people is either an ethnic or national grouping) than they do about others.
It was fascinating that Starmer, in trying to match Farage, talked this week of how “the obligations we owe to each other” required the enforcement of rules in a diverse society, to avoid the country becoming an “island of strangers”. This captured precisely the way people feel. Whether it was authentic is another matter.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/2336be30-1687-46cf-9abd-1eab217de8ad?shareToken=9374ef458b9980c7063a9b2bea30eab1
points
1) you are basing it on a single data point
2) Humans do manual work, knowledge work, creative work. The industrial revolution largely replaced most manual work, people moved to knowledge work such as clerks in offices but some couldn't as not even the intelligence. The ai revolution will replace that sort of brain work leaving only creative work for most. Now call me a bigot if you like but not convinced 90% of the human race is fit to do creative work
Round my way they got onto the council, but most of the victories were on a knife's edge.
It’s sad that another issue has become a sacrifice to the culture wars.
To turn it on its head, maybe public policy simply needs to be geared to everyone dying peacefully in their sleep between the ages of about 90 to 100 which, aside from those desperate to get a birthday card from the King, is probably what most of us want.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x44ownm
It's hard to think, apart from a short break between 2015 and 2017, Davey has been in the Commons since 1997 - he got elected when 29 so not as young as Charles Kennedy but not far off it. Will he be leader for the whole of this parliament or stand down in 2027 (assuming the next election is 2028 or even later?).
The cohort of MPs elected in 2024 contain some impressive individuals and I can see why the likes of Helen Maguire, Josh Babarinde and Bobby Dean are all in the market. That has weakened Daisy Cooper's position - nothing hurts like success as someone probably didn't once say.
That said, she's in a safe enough seat and has the benefit of experience and if one of Davey's stunts went really badly wrong, she'd probably win any vote now and she probably would if Davey chose to stand down in 2027 or 2028.
So much depends on where the party will be after the next election - I don't have a clue and neither does anyone else if we are being honest.
If she keeps her seat, Jess Brown Fuller would be my idea of the leader after next.
Trump is right on this, the ANC are treating farmers even worse than Starmer
FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is proposing changes to the statutes of motorsport's governing body that appear to further extend his control...
the list of presidential candidates and their teams, which are strictly defined, is monitored by the FIA's nominations committee.
If it finds any ethical issues with a list, it would refer the matter to the FIA's ethics committee.
Both bodies are controlled by the FIA president and his allies, following changes to the statutes made by Ben Sulayem last year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/cpvknz2wrxdo
What is it about sport that attracts scumbags at the highest levels?
Number of homes per person in 2023 = 0.44
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/timeseries/ewpop/pop
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6486ff31103ca6000c039cd7/CTSOP_summary_tables.xlsx
Otherwise ask for the pisser or just look for the signs or see where everyone else disappears to for varying lengths of time who aren’t dressed as bar staff/Waiting staff - it’s either going to be the “WC” or something fun.
First 50% then 200% are tiny. You and I have differing definitions of the word tiny.
I don't know if the refugee designation is fair or not, but the ANC will probably make it an easy decision to defend given there's plenty in South Africa who would go even further than them in rhetoric.
With two of the front four in the betting (Johnson and Farage) ineligible currently, best prices are Jenrick at 11/4 and Cleverly at 9/2. Some see the latter as a possible Mayoral candidate in London but the poll yesterday suggested Labour would still eke out a win over the Conservatives and Reform and if they have a candidate other than Sadiq Khan, I suspect Labour would win cosily,
Among the lesser known MPs, Mike Wood is on offer at 16s - he stands for what looks as safe a Conservative seat as anywhere currently while the problem with Coutinho at 20s may be her previous links to Rishi Sunak.
Further down the list, what about Ben Spencer at 50s?
I'm a totally uncreative person myself. Just the way I am.
Under the new land law, land can only be taken without compensation in unusual circumstances,
"The new law allows for expropriation without compensation only in circumstances where it is "just and equitable and in the public interest" to do so.
This includes if the property is not being used and there's no intention to either develop or make money from it or when it poses a risk to people.
The president's spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that, under the law, the state "may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than... in the public interest"."
A family of 4 can comfortably live in a house when 2 are kids. When the kids grow up, they kind of need a home of their own.
Our ageing population means that figure should have gone up more than it has. So homes have not kept pace.
Lots of laws are like that, often perfectly reasonable in practice but if you wanted you could easily misuse it, since governments want to ensure they have wide discretion to act. Which can mean they don't get amended when new governments get in, since of course they won't abuse it even if the last lot did.
The Tories and Reform need to STFU and stop repeating this lie .
There's still a notable possibility that Labour may do badly enough at the next election to require a coalition - which is a different conversation.
Plus his "official retirement age" is 67, which will be Christmas Day 2032.
I think Farage should back the scheme, as long as it is limited to 18-23 year olds, ie student ages. No one that voted Leave in order to control immigration was inspired by student gap year types. It would do wonders for Reform's youth vote
The distinction here is our ability to keep 80 year olds going is not the primary factor why dementia caseload has increased so much. It's our ability to get so many more people to 80.
I think the other thing to bear in mind is not to get lost in the percentage changes. So, there has been a massive percentage increase in the number of people aged 95. But it's not that many people, compared with say the number of 65 year old men getting treatment for heart disease.
https://x.com/bbcscotlandnews/status/1922355099193495873?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The first course was a celeriac slaw in a lovely dressing, topped with salmon roe and a horseradish foam, served with a white wine called Orgasmique that's a muscat/grenache blend
I have no idea what awaits for the next three courses..
And if they are overseas owned, they are subject to I think a 2% Stamp Duty surcharge, and an ATED Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings, which is around 1% if the property is worth £500k or more.
Better at keeping people alive in their 80s compounds with the fact people were better kept alive in their 70s, and 60s, and ...
Compound all that, and we now have magnitudes more people alive at a very old age (not just old age) that we would not have in the past, that need care today that was not needed in the past, as they wouldn't have made it to this age in the past.
Yes people made it to 70 in the past. 70 is not old today.
Not to forget the dementia is a progressive and vicious beast. Being in the early stages, versus very late stages, are not the same thing and more people today can survive into the awful very late stages.
(All PMs are brought down by their inadequacies. What made Boris's collapse special was how dismal his fatal lies ended up being. That is a special kind of stupid.)
Good to see the Holyrood doing some sensible governance. 👍
It’s come as a surprise, especially after a spat with him and a neighbouring Reform candidate online.
It does feel wrong, at some level. I'm no sure assisted dying is the answer, but we should not make casks of people.
https://youtu.be/nN6sTBSAp-A?si=AnYWXH8j_YbIy51K