UK politics - not inspiring but effective

[Craving Peaches]

14 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Also this (targeted letters

What did he even mean by 'God created everything in pairs' because I can think of many cases where things aren't in pairs but...

[Many-Faced Votary]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

Could we perhaps return to discussing UK Politics?

In fairness, "evil clowns" is an accurate descriptor of the Cabinet overseeing a fourteenth consecutive year of austerity measures, a massive budget deficit, a crippled GDP, stealthily-raised taxes, and generally horrific economic conditions for the vast majority of Britons.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Agree you can make that argument... But the UK government does not have to let that many people in. These arguments act like the no. of immigrants is totally outside of the government's control.

Just briefly, I don’t disagree. There is a conflict as to what the government said it was going to do and what it actually does. There have been some changes to immigration recently that might reduce numbers but you can see the outcry about them. As far as I’ve heard most government departments are pushing for more immigration, not less. 

[Spockydog]

4 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

That’s an awful lot of words for “I don’t know what steelmanning is”.

Yeah, sorry, I'm just an uneducated oik, unfamiliar with all yer fancy Dan rhetorical glossaries. Having said that, who gives a flying fuck what steelmanning is.

I was responding to the the ridiculous notion that lefties should listen more to the bigots. Try and see things from their point of view. 

Isn't that what Hoi, as well as Trump, was saying? Waaaaah, why won't the lefties listen to us? 

Edited March 2 by Spockydog

[Spockydog]

Here's a question for the Stop the Boats mob:

How do you intend to tackle the serious and ongoing falling birth rate in the UK?

Britain’s declining birth rate is becoming a problem too big to ignore

Quote

 

The biggest problem the world will face in 20 years, according to Elon Musk, is “population collapse”. In Japan, he says, nappies for adults now outsell those for children and he sees the same trend threatening the rest of the world. He’s hardly alone: fears of demographic decline are growing across Europe. But what should be a dry, statistical topic is being treated as a dangerous conspiracy theory of the far-Right – as I found out a few weeks ago.; 

I was invited to chair a discussion in Westminster about the “birth gap” on a cross-party panel. The speakers included Miriam Cates, a Tory MP, and Labour’s Rosie Duffield. Just before the debate started, we were told that Duffield had received so many online threats for even agreeing to appear on the panel that she had to pull out. This gave a certain samizdat feel to the debate. We had come to discuss whether the low birth rate is a problem and what, if anything, government should do about it. A debate which, it seems, some people believed should not be allowed to take place. 

There were no radicals or skinheads in the room. The panel included an actuary and a filmmaker, Stephen Shaw, who ran through his argument. The audience was young, by Westminster standards: perhaps more religious than average (I saw one gentleman in a cassock) but everyone there had come to hear a debate now being held world over. 

Italy’s birth figures were out this week: yet again, the lowest in its history. “For every child under six years old, there are over five elderly people,” reports La Stampa. In 1971, this ratio was one to one. Right now, there are three workers supporting every pensioner but this ratio is projected to fall closer to 1:1 by 2050. At which point the welfare state collapses. 

Japan was churning out two million babies a year in the 1970s: now, it’s fewer than 800,000. Studies suggest that a third of its women may never have children. Its prime minister describes this as an existential threat. Emmanuel Macron’s attempts to get ahead of all this by cutting pension allowances brought such protests that the streets of Paris ended up aflame. Norway’s children’s minister has been begging families to have a “third child” (she herself has six), so why the silence in Britain? Are we running scared from the topic – and from asking what can be done? 

Most people now live in countries with a fertility rate lower than that required to sustain the population without immigration: 2.1 per woman. The UK’s ratio is 1.55 and it already shows. School rolls, for example, are now understood to be in terminal decline. But this trend is barely discussed in Westminster. 

You can understand the hesitation. The subject can (and does) attract nutcases muttering about cultural decay, decadence and young ladies having too much fun. Dark corners of the internet are rife with theories about a “great replacement”, with elites using immigration to keep the economy going rather than help families. In France, Marine Le Pen regards birth rate increases as an economic policy. In Germany, the AfD bemoans the “increase of childless families”. Even Donald Trump has been toying with this, saying that illegal immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”. 

Hungary is a rare success story, with heavy childcare subsidies leading to a rise in its birth rate. A triumphant Viktor Orbán has celebrated by hosting the Budapest Demographic Summit every two years. All this has bolstered the view that demographics is a pet subject for national populists and is only ever discussed by the swivel-eyed. 

But if the past few years in Europe have taught us anything about populists, it’s that they only thrive when important topics are kept off the agenda by established parties. What is disparaged as “natalism” is basic policy in much of the democratic world. So it’s hard to close down this discussion. The only choice is between handing the whole agenda to conspiracy theorists – or talking about it sensibly. 

Will Britain’s social fabric come apart if immigrants provide most of the new babies, as is predicted to happen before too long? We don’t need to wonder: this is already the case in London where 60 per cent of children have foreign-born mothers. The city is hardly in crisis. 

And how seriously should we take demographic forecasts anyway? Their track record is abysmal: it wasn’t so long ago that they were predicting a “population bomb”. This led to needless panic that, tragically, China took seriously with a one-child policy aimed at solving a problem that was never going to arise. And if richer societies have lower birth rates because women have far more options, is this really such a bad thing? 

It’s also far from clear how many of the problems ascribed to low birth rates are genuinely connected to them. Britain certainly does have a worker shortage crisis and huge immigration. But this is more to do with a dysfunctional welfare system that keeps 5.5 million on out-of-work benefits. We will soon have a pension crisis (with a cost surge expected after the election), but the fault here lies with the Tory habit of bribing the elderly at election time with “triple lock” pledges. 

The idea of an Orbán-style subsidy being the answer is hard to square with what happens elsewhere. In the debate I chaired, Stephen Shaw pointed out that natalist policies haven’t really worked anywhere. The “Do it for Denmark” campaign was a flop; Sweden’s famous paternity leave hasn’t stopped its steady birth decline. South Korea has sunk an almighty $200 billion into this since 2006 and succeeded only in beating its own record for the world’s lowest birth rate, year after year – casting serious doubt on the idea that cash incentives work. 

And the missing factor in the debate? Those who don’t regret not having children and still live happy, fulfilled lives. It’s a growing trend that may very well be beyond the limits of government control. So this is what the natalism debate is about: not wacky birth control theories but important questions about the structure and future of society, family and the welfare state. It matters. And politicians who won’t address these issues may well end up forced to make way for those who will.

 

 

Edited March 2 by Spockydog

[Mentat]

I recently read 'The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism' by Martin Wolf. He had several things to say on the subject of immigration which I found thought-provoking:

- On a macro-economic level, both the positive and negative effects of immigration tend to be greatly exaggerated. They're actually pretty negligible.

- On a micro-economic level, immigration has a strong positive effect on the immigrants and their families.

- Immigration cannot possibly offset the effects of low birth rates at its current level. You'd need levels of immigration several orders of magnitude greater than they are now. Martin Wolf doesn't believe this would be politically or socially sustainable.

- There's a strong correlation between levels of immigration and both political polarisation and support for right-wing parties.

[Heartofice]

Yeah most western governments are struggling with low birth rates. I think the problem is so multi faceted and complex it’s not even clear it’s something a government can truly fix. 
 

It really is far too expensive to have children right now, but even if that was dealt with, there are numerous cultural factors that mean people delay having children or don’t have them at all. 
 

Either way, yeah immigration doesn’t fix the issue, it’s a sticking plaster kicking a can down the road, and  not very far down the road 

Edited March 2 by Heartofice

[Hmmm]

21 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah most western governments are struggling with low birth rates. I think the problem is so multi faceted and complex it’s not even clear it’s something a government can truly fix. 
 

It really is far too expensive to have children right now, but even if that was health with, there are numerous cultural factors that mean people delay having children or don’t have them at all. 
 

Either way, yeah immigration doesn’t fix the issue, it’s a sticking plaster kicking a can down the road, and  not very far down the road 

It is not just a Western or rich country problem any longer. Fertility rates have fallen dramatically in recent decades and even a lot of poorer countries will run into issues with aging and declining populations relatively soon. China being an important example. 

Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where most countries still have very high fertility rates, though they are falling rapidly there too. 

Edited March 2 by Hmmm

[Liffguard]

I've mentioned before I have zero problems with immigration and am explicitly in favour of global open borders. I also mentioned before I'm uncomfortable with the argument "immigration is good because who else is going to do our shit, badly paid jobs?" I suppose I'm also uncomfortable with the argument "immigration is good because it keeps our unsustainable economic order afloat for another twenty years or so." By all accounts, falling birth-rates are a global issue, and the globe's population grwoth seems to be consistently predicted to slow and then reverse. An economic system that relies on a bottom-heavy demographic pyramid seems to be on borrowed time. Politicians can either try to delay the inevitable for as long as possible, or we can start trying to make rational plans for how we can justly and equitably organise and run an ageing society.

[Heartofice]

24 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

how we can justly and equitably organise and run an ageing society.

Logan’s run.

just putting it out there as an idea.

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Logan’s run.

just putting it out there as an idea.

Ättestupa. Just don't go feet first. 

[The Anti-Targ]

It's a natural, and good, thing that as women become more educated they tend to have fewer children, because they see themselves as more than just baby factories. However this by itself should not lead to a declining population, because alone it should drop birth rates down to a stable or slowly growing population. What sends it into decline are all the socio-economic negatives that are weighing people down. Shitty geopolitical conditions, environmental problems people thinking they shouldn't breed as part of their contribution to global warming mitigation and other environmental degradation and pollution issues, the expense, the perception of a greater level of stranger danger (even though the facts suggest it's actually friends and relatives who are a greater danger), the [false] rhetoric that the world is already overpopulated, and a few other things I'm probably forgetting.

There's actually a lot govts can do to address these de-motivating factors. They can give a lot more direct financial support to families (if there is a concern about dropping birth rates direct financial support can help to address that concern), govts can take more meaningful and urgent action on environment, pollution and global warming, govts can make sure education all the way through high school and probably even undergraduate degrees are universally available, at low or no direct cost to families and of a uniformly high quality. 

Of course the cost of raising a child, even with current levels of govt spending, is a lot more expensive than importing a fully grown adult, with the necessary skills and qualification, and putting them straight to work, esp since those adults usually bring a bit of cash with them. So govts are motivated to try to address population decline with immigration because it requires the govt to do less.

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What sends it into decline are all the socio-economic negatives that are weighing people down. Shitty geopolitical conditions, environmental problems people thinking they shouldn't breed as part of their contribution to global warming mitigation and other environmental degradation and pollution issues, the expense, the perception of a greater level of stranger danger (even though the facts suggest it's actually friends and relatives who are a greater danger), the [false] rhetoric that the world is already overpopulated, and a few other things I'm probably forgetting.

I think the biggest factor is the cost of raising children, overwhelmingly it would be seen as a career and life changing decision that might be an enormous mistake for a lot of young people, and so they avoid doing it until they are absolutely sure they can afford it.

There was an interesting thought I saw somewhere else about the way having children intersects with class as well. It used to be that large families were the preserve of the working class, just culturally it was more the norm to marry early, have a load of kids, the wife would stay at home to look after them or have a part time job. There would be lots of family around to help provide support. 

These days there are really only pockets of the working class where this is even slightly true. Now with rising housing costs, the inability of one parent to support a family financially, dispersed family structures and stagnating wages, the working class, and in reality the middle class (who also actually work) put off having children to much later.

But then there is a trend in the 'leisure class', rich people who don't really need to work, can afford permanent childcare, to display their wealth by having more children. Personally I know a couple of richer friends who are now on their 3rd and thinking about a 4th. That would be impossible for me. Ironically they might be the sort of people preaching about over population and women's rights. 

The other part of this equation, which I think doesn't get talked about enough and is something governments will struggle to do much about, is the sexual marketplace and general cultural changes. Back in the day you might know only a handful of people who would be willing to hook up with you and the societal penalty for sex outside marriage was severe, many would marry the first person they slept with. Now everyone is dating, using apps, hooking up and thinking Mr/Mrs Right is out there somewhere. There is no chance of us going backwards in this regards.

Also I don't see people having children at 21 in an age where they could be prolonging their adolescence well into their 30's. Having a kid means growing up, it's hard, it's often really not fun at all. It means an enormous sacrifice in time, wealth and energy. Many people will not want to do that until they have done all the things we are told we need to do, like going bungee jumping off a waterfall or some shit.

Edited March 4 by Heartofice

[BigFatCoward]

The amount of 'dead' money in having kids is insane, my wife took a year off work for each, so we were about 50 grand down for each of them, then nearly a grand a month for childcare, by the time they both start school we are about £200,000 down without taking into account the cost of feeding, clothing, fucking expensive farms etc. 

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The amount of 'dead' money in having kids is insane, my wife took a year off work for each, so we were about 50 grand down for each of them, then nearly a grand a month for childcare, by the time they both start school we are about £200,000 down without taking into account the cost of feeding, clothing, fucking expensive farms etc. 

Yeah plus the other costs that suddenly might add up, like needing a bigger house, needing a car. If you are in your 20's these things are a literal impossibility unless you want to raise your children in a tiny 1 bed flat. 

I do envy some of my childless friends who are able to go on holiday, or go to a nice restaurant, talk about the fun things they did. The opposite is also true of them as they come round and see the kids being angels and think it's amazing, not being there to see the screaming and tantrums.

[polishgenius]

Well done Rochdale. Good going. 

[Maltaran]

I think most of the blame has to go on the incompetence of the people in the Labour Party who are in charge of vetting candidates 

[Spockydog]

53 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Well done Rochdale. Good going. 

If you ask me, this sounds like just the sort of thing someone with some rapey skelingtons of their own might come out with. 

[mormont]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-labour-sunak-hunt-starmer-budget-support-record-low-poll-b1142921.html?fbclid=IwAR2Zi4sdUFAjCG8plVB-c-u8d7EwfqhfUEzfXZs6w4JaaWsaNJNgsN6YuaI
 

Quote

The Tories hit rock bottom today with support for their party across Britain falling to a record low of just 20 per cent, according to a new poll.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-general-election-labour-nhs-cost-poll-b1142977.html
 

Quote

The state of public services more generally could be a real Achilles heel for the Conservatives at the coming election. 78% told us last year that public services had got worse in the last 5 years.

In today’s poll the public think that Labour has the best policies over the Conservatives ‘for public services generally’ by an almost 4 to 1 margin. Perhaps this why the Conservatives would rather not talk about them – but at some point they will need to.

 

[BigFatCoward]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-labour-sunak-hunt-starmer-budget-support-record-low-poll-b1142921.html?fbclid=IwAR2Zi4sdUFAjCG8plVB-c-u8d7EwfqhfUEzfXZs6w4JaaWsaNJNgsN6YuaI
 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-general-election-labour-nhs-cost-poll-b1142977.html
 

 

Talking about public services, the Sarah Everard documentary tomorrow is going to be fucking hard viewing,

I'd like to lay the blame at the tories feet, but it's just not possible, its the worst thing ever as a formerly proud police officer  What the actual fuck, how could it happen?