|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Sept 1, 2022 18:21:48 GMT
Truss who wants to abolish all the protective laws partially inherited from the EU. But she would do anything for self-satisfaction (as everyone knows - perhaps except for her). This is from her speech on the Eve of the 2016 referendum: " But that is why that EU market is so precious; because we share the same regulations, we share the same rules over things like food safety, over animal health and welfare – over bottles – and the whisky industry and I have been doing a bit of a UK tour recently. And the whisky industry will tell you how important it is, that because we share those regulations over bottling and labelling, they can simply export their products to Paris just as easily as they can sell them in a supermarket in Preston."kellnerpolitics.com/2022/07/15/the-day-liz-truss-told-the-truth-about-brexit/And it is also in today's FT. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Sept 1, 2022 18:24:00 GMT
colin - "Saving £150 to £250 pa ? Is that really a solution to £5k pa energy bills. ?" Don't know, but like I say, it looks like a start. I don't really get the numbers though. The article quotes savings of between £11bn and £18bn pa for domestic customers, and with 27m households or so that means from £400 - £660 pa, which on top of the existing £400 rebate that starts to get useful. This only affects UK renewable and nuclear generation by the look of it, so if we couple that with legislation to direct UK oil and gas producers to sell into the domestic market at a fair price and not follow the global prices then we're in real business. Some customer response to high prices to reduce demand will also be helpful, for many reasons, including price pressures, so lots of potential if we start going down the route of confronting market dynamics that work against the national interest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 18:24:30 GMT
I don't see why you should want other people to know about your simpleton tastes. Actually, I think that's a gratuitously unpleasant thing to say to anyone. A bit of personal abuse mixed with intellectual snobbery. I'm all for a bit of leg pulling, even taking the piss, and I'm prepared to get it back too, but I don't like this sort of stuff at all, no matter how different our political views may be. You're developing form on this. Am I now? Never particularly liked trolls and Mercian is a self confessed one |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Sept 1, 2022 18:27:52 GMT
@lazslo4new - "But she would do anything for self-satisfaction"
May be this is an example of the vagaries of the English language tripping you up, but honestly, I just don't think we're ready for the mental image of Truss satisfying herself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 18:49:46 GMT
colin - "Saving £150 to £250 pa ? Is that really a solution to £5k pa energy bills. ?" Don't know, but like I say, it looks like a start. I don't really get the numbers though. The article quotes savings of between £11bn and £18bn pa for domestic customers, and with 27m households or so that means from £400 - £660 pa, which on top of the existing £400 rebate that starts to get useful. This only affects UK renewable and nuclear generation by the look of it, so if we couple that with legislation to direct UK oil and gas producers to sell into the domestic market at a fair price and not follow the global prices then we're in real business. Some customer response to high prices to reduce demand will also be helpful, for many reasons, including price pressures, so lots of potential if we start going down the route of confronting market dynamics that work against the national interest. THere seems to be a lot of thrashing about. Oh for someone to grip the thing and get something sustainable, helpful and relevant underway. ps-just reading this which suggests we are comparatively more out of line on Elec. prices rather than Gas:- inews.co.uk/news/energy-prices-europe-what-uk-compared-countries-price-cap-rise-1823666 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 19:06:00 GMT
Hoping this turns out well for Ukraine-not clear at present.They have a lot of credibility riding on it.
Very helpful map in this report :-
orbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/31/confusion-deepens-as-the-ukrainian-army-rolls-south-toward-kherson/?sh=1f4bbbd91ac3
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,594
|
Post by Danny on Sept 1, 2022 19:14:32 GMT
If the Uk ends up even more uncompetitive because we have allowed a crazy private sector auction system to inflate our energy prices...we are so screwed as a trading nation. And plenty more commentators today scathing about Johnson (and his colleagues) arguing that our salvation lies with nuclear. It really doesnt. It lies in taking government control of the Uk energy supply industry. It lies in fast tracking more renewables. It lies in restoring our gas storage capacity. As things stand, it may well lie in immediate investment to use surplus wind energy to generate hydrogen gas. Frankly I dont see any other credible solution to energy storage when the wind blows. OK, we may be able to charge electric cars when its windy, but that isnt really a national solution to calm days (weeks), and has its own problems in that no one is even planning a national home charging network for every singe household. But just as important, we can continue to use natural gas perfectly well so long as its on a small scale just to cover wind outages. Seems people are saying more likely 15 years to get a nuclear plant generating electricty, not ten. Its all going to be over by then. And the Uk will be left with expensive nuclear electricity it wont need. |
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Sept 1, 2022 19:15:55 GMT
Truss who wants to abolish all the protective laws partially inherited from the EU. But she would do anything for self-satisfaction (as everyone knows - perhaps except for her). This is from her speech on the Eve of the 2016 referendum: " But that is why that EU market is so precious; because we share the same regulations, we share the same rules over things like food safety, over animal health and welfare – over bottles – and the whisky industry and I have been doing a bit of a UK tour recently. And the whisky industry will tell you how important it is, that because we share those regulations over bottling and labelling, they can simply export their products to Paris just as easily as they can sell them in a supermarket in Preston."kellnerpolitics.com/2022/07/15/the-day-liz-truss-told-the-truth-about-brexit/And it is also in today's FT. Whisky industry? Didn't they have a (now) well-known face pushing for continuing EU membership? What was he called? Frosty or some such. I wonder what happened to him. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,594
|
Post by Danny on Sept 1, 2022 19:22:38 GMT
10% staff shortage probably doesnt mean 10% less work done. It could well mean a whole team can't function because critical staff are missing.
On the plus side, the NHS is used to using bank staff. But again, presumably they too have lost employees because of Brexit. Though it caused problems even decades ago, because temporary staff dont know the routine.
incidentally, I happened to talk to a nurse from taiwan or somewhere just recently. He said he cannot work as a qualified nurse here without sitting new exams, including use of English. So hes just working in a care home. One of the other things the EU did was harmonise qualifications so people could just do their jobs in a different member state.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,594
|
Post by Danny on Sept 1, 2022 19:26:00 GMT
Tories under Truss looks like a short trip to opposition to me. Which is probably what they need. And I have been saying for some time that they know it. But how do you escape the Brexit trap they created, the energy trap they created, the lockdown trap they created? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,594
|
Post by Danny on Sept 1, 2022 19:34:38 GMT
Red Arrows flying over the Tobias Ellwood seat today; very large crowds staring at the skies and cheering; I felt 'well queasy' at the sounds of the jet engines. How many were there? I heard they were two planes short because of pilots quitting or being taken off the team because of wild goings on? Said they were all under a 'no comments' investigation. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,628
|
Post by pjw1961 on Sept 1, 2022 19:36:11 GMT
I have updated my "opposition lead" tables over on the polling archive thread for August. This is the summary:
"The average Labour lead saw a slight fall from 9.4% in July, to 8.9% in August due to a relatively poor start to the month but this was still the second best month for Labour of this parliament. This in turn increased the average lead in the 'months opposition are ahead' number from 6.4 to 6.7%. In 7 of the 8 parliaments above it the opposition went on to win the subsequent GE."
As usual you can add a couple of percent for the 'loss of Scotland' factor to Labour's lead for historical comparisons if you are so minded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 1, 2022 19:41:55 GMT
Re-the debate on Labour's stance.
Firstly, if your vote is first and foremost an ABT vote, in a fair number of places, that surely means a vote for the LibDems, SNP, Plaid Cymru in a handful of places, Green in one - not Labour.
On Labour itself, while I agree that a Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, that doesn't mean a carte blanche.
In terms of Starmer, his ditching of pledges he was elected on is a cause for concern. I readily accept that I am to the left of most politicians/policy platforms - and that I won't get policies that I deem to be anywhere near perfect, but, one thing I do demand of politicians - from all parties - is *be honest*.
If Starmer wanted to move Labour rightwards, then fine, I may not agree, but, that's life - and I can still vote for him or not depending on how I see fit, but not being straight about it at the start, that is a big deal.
For the record, I don't think he's done badly in some respects and I'm not necessarily sayig I won't vote Labour when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Sept 1, 2022 19:42:30 GMT
Tories under Truss looks like a short trip to opposition to me. Which is probably what they need. And I have been for ome time that they know it. But how do you escape the Brexit tra they created, the energy trap they created, the lockdown trap they created? People have short memories and the Tories have a good majority. Even if they lose power, they'll be close next time. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,628
|
Post by pjw1961 on Sept 1, 2022 19:52:14 GMT
And I have been for ome time that they know it. But how do you escape the Brexit tra they created, the energy trap they created, the lockdown trap they created? People have short memories and the Tories have a good majority. Even if they lose power, they'll be close next time. To which you can add that their friends control most of the media, they are funded at levels equal or greater than all other parties put together and, most importantly, they are currently the only choice on the right of British politics, whereas the centre/left vote is split multiple ways. Which is why the next non-conservative government must introduce proportional representation (I don't expect this to happen). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 19:54:51 GMT
Actually, I think that's a gratuitously unpleasant thing to say to anyone. A bit of personal abuse mixed with intellectual snobbery. I'm all for a bit of leg pulling, even taking the piss, and I'm prepared to get it back too, but I don't like this sort of stuff at all, no matter how different our political views may be. You're developing form on this. Am I now? Never particularly liked trolls and Mercian is a self confessed one Pete is no more a troll than you, Batty, Steve, myself or anyone else on this site. He is roc and voted for brexit but generally expresses his views either pleasantly and often with humorous intent. Anybody who tries the latter knows it doesn’t always come over as intended of course. However, calling someone a “simpleton” because they express a particular taste for certain types of poetry is, as Batty rightly said, gratuitously unpleasant. Especially as the word has a pretty nasty history in terms of its usage. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 1, 2022 20:03:12 GMT
Somebody needs to help me here, and I suspect it will to have to be someone who is critical of Starmer for his alleged reneging on pledges made during the leadership campaign, but what exactly, in hard policy terms, has he now disavowed and disowned that he once espoused?
I've seen some equivocating on public ownership and some general qualification, dilution and hedging. Quite a bit of typical political ducking and diving too, but I've seen no outright denunciations of previous positions or statements, nor any specific blasphemy against the sacred scrolls and commandments.
So what has he actually denounced and repudiated?
Or is this a canard that has now become received wisdom, as so often happens in politics?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 20:04:03 GMT
I don't like poetry which is deliberately obscure. Being a simple sort of chap I like poetry that goes rum-te-tum-te-tum, rhymes, and tells a story. e.g. Charge of the Light Brigade, Vitai Lampada, The Highwayman etc. Mostly Victorian lyric stuff. I don't see why you should want other people to know about your simpleton tastes. This is the exchange - liked by you at the time. I don’t give a fuck what you have now decided to think about it |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Sept 1, 2022 20:04:13 GMT
Re-the debate on Labour's stance. Firstly, if your vote is first and foremost an ABT vote, in a fair number of places, that surely means a vote for the LibDems, SNP, Plaid Cymru in a handful of places, Green in one - not Labour. On Labour itself, while I agree that a Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, that doesn't mean a carte blanche. In terms of Starmer, his ditching of pledges he was elected on is a cause for concern. I readily accept that I am to the left of most politicians/policy platforms - and that I won't get policies that I deem to be anywhere near perfect, but, one thing I do demand of politicians - from all parties - is *be honest*. If Starmer wanted to move Labour rightwards, then fine, I may not agree, but, that's life - and I can still vote for him or not depending on how I see fit, but not being straight about it at the start, that is a big deal. For the record, I don't think he's done badly in some respects and I'm not necessarily sayig I won't vote Labour when the time comes. I have sympathy with this position. Most people probably expected the leader after Corbyn to be somewhat to the right of him. That made a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. What they did not expect was that he would become an acolyte of the Labour right. I've spoken about this previously but part of the reason why his lurch towards that ground has been difficult for many, is because that is not where he has ever been before. He had to change his own views and unnecessarily pick a side in a civil war that wasn't his fight. To make it worse, it meant directly disavowing the platform on which he stood for leader. There are those who say, so what? As long as he takes Labour to power it would have been worth it. That any Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, and anyway what right minded left of centre voter could stand by and let this Tory government win again? That view has its merits. However, many of the same people who articulate it were "anyone but Corbyn" types. Now they have the leader they want they insist it's a fundamental duty to back him, when they didn't back the previous one, thus leading to the disaster we are seeing today. Slice it however you want, that's simply a fact. I'm still hopeful that Starmer will return to his roots and understand that the big tent is preferable to partisanship. I understand his apprehension. But what is the point of being on the soft left, if you decide at all costs to burn any leftist bridge you see in pursuit of centrism. And at a time when the main centrist party is aiming soft left! |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Sept 1, 2022 20:09:23 GMT
Colin, the link you provided does not seem to be complete
orbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/31/confusion-deepens-as-the-ukrainian-army-rolls-south-toward-kherson/?sh=1f4bbbd91ac3
Could you possibly repost it.
Thanks, Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 1, 2022 20:20:26 GMT
Re-the debate on Labour's stance. Firstly, if your vote is first and foremost an ABT vote, in a fair number of places, that surely means a vote for the LibDems, SNP, Plaid Cymru in a handful of places, Green in one - not Labour. On Labour itself, while I agree that a Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, that doesn't mean a carte blanche. In terms of Starmer, his ditching of pledges he was elected on is a cause for concern. I readily accept that I am to the left of most politicians/policy platforms - and that I won't get policies that I deem to be anywhere near perfect, but, one thing I do demand of politicians - from all parties - is *be honest*. If Starmer wanted to move Labour rightwards, then fine, I may not agree, but, that's life - and I can still vote for him or not depending on how I see fit, but not being straight about it at the start, that is a big deal. For the record, I don't think he's done badly in some respects and I'm not necessarily sayig I won't vote Labour when the time comes. The posters who are most critical of Starmer are those who don't vote; those who vote for other parties; those like yrself who are disillusioned with Starmer & say they may withold their vote from Labour. I don't have to think about what I'm going to do as I intend to vote Labour in a safe seat come what may. I would vote Lib-Dem tactically: but you raise a ticklish & fascinating question about being an ABT would require voting for Welsh or Scottish nationalism, in presumably Nationalist:Tory marginals. The disillusioned seem to have two main connected gripes bout Starmer. That he was dishonest in his campaign & he's not left-wing enough & is just relying on Tory screw ups. The first is history & no one thinks Starmer is going to be replaced. What practically would he have to do to answer the second criticism. I realise that's not an easy question to answer. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 1, 2022 20:25:24 GMT
RAF
I go back to the general question I posed. What parts of the "platform" has Starmer "disavowed" to the extent he's burnt any bridges that can't be crossed again?
And what's this straw man "anyone but Corbyn"? As many others have said, I campaigned for him throughout the time he was leader. I thought all along that he and his key acolytes were wastes of space as politicians, and I did think of quitting at times, but I wanted Labour to win and for the increasingly right wing Tory Party to be defeated.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Sept 1, 2022 20:26:15 GMT
I don't like poetry which is deliberately obscure. Being a simple sort of chap I like poetry that goes rum-te-tum-te-tum, rhymes, and tells a story. e.g. Charge of the Light Brigade, Vitai Lampada, The Highwayman etc. Mostly Victorian lyric stuff. I don't see why you should want other people to know about your simpleton tastes. Well I don't see why you should so often be gratuitously offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Sept 1, 2022 20:29:21 GMT
PJW,
''This in turn increased the average lead in the 'months opposition are ahead' number from 6.4 to 6.7%''
I am sure you aware that the impact of a low lead on this average is greater than a low deficit.
I understand why you track that number but, just thinking out loud, would a figure like number of months in the lead x the average lead be worth considering?
Perhaps there is a number below which an opposition has never one and one above which they always have?
I suspect that whatever metric is used the ' no clear outcome' bracket would be in play come the next GE.
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 1, 2022 20:31:25 GMT
Re-the debate on Labour's stance. Firstly, if your vote is first and foremost an ABT vote, in a fair number of places, that surely means a vote for the LibDems, SNP, Plaid Cymru in a handful of places, Green in one - not Labour. On Labour itself, while I agree that a Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, that doesn't mean a carte blanche. In terms of Starmer, his ditching of pledges he was elected on is a cause for concern. I readily accept that I am to the left of most politicians/policy platforms - and that I won't get policies that I deem to be anywhere near perfect, but, one thing I do demand of politicians - from all parties - is *be honest*. If Starmer wanted to move Labour rightwards, then fine, I may not agree, but, that's life - and I can still vote for him or not depending on how I see fit, but not being straight about it at the start, that is a big deal. For the record, I don't think he's done badly in some respects and I'm not necessarily sayig I won't vote Labour when the time comes. I have sympathy with this position. Most people probably expected the leader after Corbyn to be somewhat to the right of him. That made a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. What they did not expect was that he would become an acolyte of the Labour right. I've spoken about this previously but part of the reason why his lurch towards that ground has been difficult for many, is because that is not where he has ever been before. He had to change his own views and unnecessarily pick a side in a civil war that wasn't his fight. To make it worse, it meant directly disavowing the platform on which he stood for leader. There are those who say, so what? As long as he takes Labour to power it would have been worth it. That any Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, and anyway what right minded left of centre voter could stand by and let this Tory government win again? That view has its merits. However, many of the same people who articulate it were "anyone but Corbyn" types. Now they have the leader they want they insist it's a fundamental duty to back him, when they didn't back the previous one, thus leading to the disaster we are seeing today. Slice it however you want, that's simply a fact.
I'm still hopeful that Starmer will return to his roots and understand that the big tent is preferable to partisanship. I understand his apprehension. But what is the point of being on the soft left, if you decide at all costs to burn any leftist bridge you see in pursuit of centrism. And at a time when the main centrist party is aiming soft left! Fair enough. But can I take you up on the italicised bit. I did criticise him, but I also canvassed for Labour & voted for him. I'm not sure what you meant by leading to the disaster. The critique of Corbyn's Labour opponents would have to focus not on what the spear carriers said but on the MPs' coup against him following the EU Ref: & whether if the MPs who resigned from the front bench had stayed put, & there is nothing wors than a coup which fails, this would have enabled a more united front in 2017 & a higher Labour vote. They didn't need many extra seats. I know that's a pretty big what if. |
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Sept 1, 2022 20:34:47 GMT
Colin, the link you provided does not seem to be complete orbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/31/confusion-deepens-as-the-ukrainian-army-rolls-south-toward-kherson/?sh=1f4bbbd91ac3 Could you possibly repost it. Thanks, Peter It was just missing the initial f:
Confusion Deepens As The Ukrainian Army Rolls South Toward Kherson
After more than three months of preparation, the Ukrainian army on Monday launched its highly-anticipated counteroffensive in southern Ukraine.
The twin goals: to cut off and destroy the dozens of Russian battalions dug in north of the Dnipro River, then liberate the strategic port city of Kherson from its Russian occupiers.
Photos, videos and official statements in the two days since the purported launch of the counteroffensive seem to confirm that the operation is real, not just propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Sept 1, 2022 20:45:23 GMT
I have sympathy with this position. Most people probably expected the leader after Corbyn to be somewhat to the right of him. That made a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. What they did not expect was that he would become an acolyte of the Labour right. I've spoken about this previously but part of the reason why his lurch towards that ground has been difficult for many, is because that is not where he has ever been before. He had to change his own views and unnecessarily pick a side in a civil war that wasn't his fight. To make it worse, it meant directly disavowing the platform on which he stood for leader. There are those who say, so what? As long as he takes Labour to power it would have been worth it. That any Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, and anyway what right minded left of centre voter could stand by and let this Tory government win again? That view has its merits. However, many of the same people who articulate it were "anyone but Corbyn" types. Now they have the leader they want they insist it's a fundamental duty to back him, when they didn't back the previous one, thus leading to the disaster we are seeing today. Slice it however you want, that's simply a fact.
I'm still hopeful that Starmer will return to his roots and understand that the big tent is preferable to partisanship. I understand his apprehension. But what is the point of being on the soft left, if you decide at all costs to burn any leftist bridge you see in pursuit of centrism. And at a time when the main centrist party is aiming soft left! Fair enough. But can I take you up on the italicised bit. I did criticise him, but I also canvassed for Labour & voted for him. I'm not sure what you meant by leading to the disaster. The critique of Corbyn's Labour opponents would have to focus not on what the spear carriers said but on the MPs' coup against him following the EU Ref: & whether if the MPs who resigned from the front bench had stayed put, & there is nothing wors than a coup which fails, this would have enabled a more united front in 2017 & a higher Labour vote. They didn't need many extra seats. I know that's a pretty big what if. Agreed. I should have clarified. I was referring in that paragraph to those erstwhile Labour voters who either didn't vote or voted for the Conservatives; and also to the group you specify. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 20:46:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 1, 2022 20:51:54 GMT
I have sympathy with this position. Most people probably expected the leader after Corbyn to be somewhat to the right of him. That made a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. What they did not expect was that he would become an acolyte of the Labour right. I've spoken about this previously but part of the reason why his lurch towards that ground has been difficult for many, is because that is not where he has ever been before. He had to change his own views and unnecessarily pick a side in a civil war that wasn't his fight. To make it worse, it meant directly disavowing the platform on which he stood for leader. There are those who say, so what? As long as he takes Labour to power it would have been worth it. That any Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, and anyway what right minded left of centre voter could stand by and let this Tory government win again? That view has its merits. However, many of the same people who articulate it were "anyone but Corbyn" types. Now they have the leader they want they insist it's a fundamental duty to back him, when they didn't back the previous one, thus leading to the disaster we are seeing today. Slice it however you want, that's simply a fact.
I'm still hopeful that Starmer will return to his roots and understand that the big tent is preferable to partisanship. I understand his apprehension. But what is the point of being on the soft left, if you decide at all costs to burn any leftist bridge you see in pursuit of centrism. And at a time when the main centrist party is aiming soft left! Fair enough. But can I take you up on the italicised bit. I did criticise him, but I also canvassed for Labour & voted for him. I'm not sure what you meant by leading to the disaster. If you didn’t support Corbyn on here, didn’t urge people to vote for him on here, only slagged him off, it’s a bit comical to go “but I supported him elsewhere, honest guv, so therefore you have to support my leader now!” The right wingers who say they campaigned for Corbyn yet didn’t seem to know much about his policies, couldn’t bring themselves to find much good in any of it at all, and just assume it was all too extremely left wing to take seriously when actually a lot of it was rather centrist: how do you campaign when you know very little about his policies? “Vote Corbyn!” ”Why?” ”Dunno. Anyway I can’t stand him. I don’t like left wing policies either. I can talk a lot about that! I’m in the 8% of people who don’t want more nationalisation. And even a majority of Tories want some nationalisation.” |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 20:55:43 GMT
"Nearly half of British children now grow up outside the traditional two-parent household, according to a report on the make-up of the modern family. A review being published today by Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, has found that almost a quarter of families are headed by a lone parent, compared with the EU average of one eighth. Forty-four per cent of those born in 2000 will have spent some of their childhood up to age 17 outside a traditional “nuclear” family, compared with 21 per cent of people born in 1970." Very interesting report with revealing detail :- www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/report/family-and-its-protective-effect-part-1-of-the-independent-family-review/ |
|
