2 May 2024 : LAB 44% / CON 26% / LDM 10% / REF 10%

[steve]

That's completely wrong. The countries where we need population declines the most are the rich western countries, because the individual levels of consumption here means that the overall population impacts are far greater.

--
Well that's ok because we're seeing that.
However the greater increase in the rates of consumption aren't occurring in rich western countries while of course the overall levels remain higher.

[Danny]

May 6, 2024 10:07:24 GMT pjw1961 said:

Until recently the Royal family were notably keen on being cruel to animals, many a fox ripped apart and grouse blasted to bits. I think they have toned it down recently as it was deemed to not be a good look. 

If that was you, would you prefer to live in a battery shed for however long it took to get big enough to eat, not exist at all, or run wild until the hunters caught you? Those are pretty much the choices for most animals since we took over. Not forgetting that this is really only the natural situation, with larger animals tearing apart smaller ones.

[steve]

Globally, nationally and locally, we face an overcrowding problem which won't be resolved until we accept that a managed descent from over 8bn

UN data suggests all western European countries will be in population declined by the second half of the century and just 2% worldwide will still be experiencing population growth by the end of the century.

Whether this is managed or not it's happening.

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2024 11:14:37 GMT Danny said:

May 6, 2024 10:07:24 GMT pjw1961 said:

Until recently the Royal family were notably keen on being cruel to animals, many a fox ripped apart and grouse blasted to bits. I think they have toned it down recently as it was deemed to not be a good look. 

If that was you, would you prefer to live in a battery shed for however long it took to get big enough to eat, not exist at all, or run wild until the hunters caught you? Those are pretty much the choices for most animals since we took over. Not forgetting that this is really only the natural situation, with larger animals tearing apart smaller ones.

Nothing natural about grouse moors. 

[steve]

So it transpires that the latest phase in the implementation of national shoot yourself in the foot day is actually having a worse impact than experts anticipated, with hours long delays for lorries at our ports awaiting customs checks only then to be waived through as there are no staff to do the checks.
But blue passports and all that.

youtu.be/FZVN8MG1HvM?si=lc_v0oeUYUy-SNni

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2024 11:06:52 GMT alec said:

domjg - "In a few years the only place where your population proselytising will be needed will be Africa. You could be a kind of missionary telling them how their culture should be. I'm sure they'll love you for it!"

That's completely wrong. The countries where we need population declines the most are the rich western countries, because the individual levels of consumption here means that the overall population impacts are far greater.

You're point on needing young people is also misguided. I'm old enough to remember all those articles (from about 2 years ago) telling us we were on the verge of a 4th industrial revolution and how universal basic income and a 4 day working week was the future.

We have technologies that mean we can work far more efficiently. We can do much more with far fewer people, freeing up labour for the personal contact jobs that really need human involvement.

Africans, like everyone else, aspire to western levels of consumption and who can blame them. They are not choosing to be poorer than Westerners out of a sense of welfare for the planet. 

The solution to overpopulation is to advance women's rights, status and access to contraception. There is overwhelming evidence that where women have the right to control their own fertility most choose to have fewer children. In turn this requires a relentless opposition to religious and political groups that seek to oppress women. 

[athena]

I'm afraid the monarch still has non-negligible real power to review legislation and lobby for changes or exemptions. A couple of years back the Graun did some digging and the results were a revelation - a least to me.

More than 1000 laws were sent to the late Queen for vetting because they were deemed to affect the revenues, assets or interests of the crown. The scope of the consent provision seems to be quite widely drawn, because she was sent bills relating to a remarkably wide range of topics. She secured exemptions from a whole range of laws, but information about how many she succeeded in getting changed in other ways has not been disclosed.

Back in 1992 Prince Charles used the consent provision to pressurise our elected government into giving him an exemption to a new law on leasehold reform, so that his tenants would not have the right to buy their homes. Government ministers didn't think an exemption was justified, but the Prince refused to back down. After considerable to-ing and fro-ing, the final civil service advice was 'On the basis that it is important to avoid a major row with the Prince of Wales … there is a case for letting matters rest … It is open to the minister to fight if he wishes, recognising that this is likely to have costs on both sides.' - and at that point the government caved, reluctantly.

Then there is Charles's long history of pestering and lobbying government ministers about matters not covered by the consent provision. Architecture, homeopathy, badgers, military helicopters, the Patagonian toothfish, teaching methods, school meals - the list is endless and the Guardian had to go to court to get the information - with taxpaying citizens footing the legal expenses for the Crown. When the SoS for Health (Reid) resisted Charles's pestering about restrictions on the sale of so-called herbal medicines he went to PM Blair, who proved more sympathetic, including giving the Prince's alternative medicine charity a role in deciding government action.

Charles III is a vastly wealthy, fantiasticly privileged, opinionated, short-tempered old man with an extremely narrow experience of life. Not so very different from a number of UKPR2 contributors in many ways... but because of who he is, his foibles, biases and failures of understanding are far from innocuous.

[Danny]

May 6, 2024 11:06:52 GMT alec said:

domjg - "In a few years the only place where your population proselytising will be needed will be Africa. You could be a kind of missionary telling them how their culture should be. I'm sure they'll love you for it!"

That's completely wrong. The countries where we need population declines the most are the rich western countries, because the individual levels of consumption here means that the overall population impacts are far greater.

Thats a very odd way of looking at it. Firstly, its an almost universal rule that as nations have become richer they have fewer childen. The arrival of universal contraception has helped, but Im not clear whether even with less reliable methods that rule has not still applied. Poor people look upon extra children as an asset, but rich people in developed societies look upon them as a cost. One of those consumables in rich countries is paying for children. Second, you seem to be saying its great that there are poorer countries much less wealthy than us and we should aspire to make sure that continues.

You're point on needing young people is also misguided. I'm old enough to remember all those articles (from about 2 years ago) telling us we were on the verge of a 4th industrial revolution and how universal basic income and a 4 day working week was the future. We have technologies that mean we can work far more efficiently. We can do much more with far fewer people, freeing up labour for the personal contact jobs that really need human involvement.

Yes, but getting in poor foreigners is cheaper either than raising our own or getting that technological investment. What it may very well come down to is us choosing to become a poorer country by doing none of those things. I can that leading to problems with voters, even if most of that extra wealth is disappearing into the hands of a minority.

I dont have any problem with reducing the size of the UK population. But politicians would then have to accept they cannot solve their financial problems through GDP growth. None seem willing to give that up.

[Danny]

May 6, 2024 11:28:54 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 6, 2024 11:14:37 GMT Danny said:

If that was you, would you prefer to live in a battery shed for however long it took to get big enough to eat, not exist at all, or run wild until the hunters caught you? Those are pretty much the choices for most animals since we took over. Not forgetting that this is really only the natural situation, with larger animals tearing apart smaller ones.

Nothing natural about grouse moors. 

No indeed. By rights shouldnt be any grouse alive here at all.

[Danny]

May 6, 2024 11:34:02 GMT pjw1961 said:

. There is overwhelming evidence that where women have the right to control their own fertility most choose to have fewer children. In turn this requires a relentless opposition to religious and political groups that seek to oppress women. 

Or indeed a relentless opposition to religious groups which seek to oppress men, and then they will tell their women not to have so many children.

[athena]

May 6, 2024 10:07:24 GMT pjw1961 said:

Until recently the Royal family were notably keen on being cruel to animals, many a fox ripped apart and grouse blasted to bits. I think they have toned it down recently as it was deemed to not be a good look. 

Amongst the monarch's many exemptions from laws that apply to the rest of us are several that could be - and possibly were - used to frustrate investigations into wildlife crimes. For example, police and environmental inspectors can't enter the monarch's land without royal permission. Similar exemptions exist in Scotland - apparently the justification was 'the Queen’s position as a proprietor of salmon fisheries in Her private capacity'. That sounds to me as if she used her position as monarch to obtain an exemption which benefited her as a private businessowner.

[Danny]

May 6, 2024 11:52:26 GMT athena said:

I'm afraid the monarch still has non-negligible real power to review legislation and lobby for changes or exemptions.

Well, not really. Its rather more important the queen permitted Johnson to dissolve parliament illegally because she believed she had no option but to agree. In important matters the crown always folds. There is certainly plenty of notional power, to refuse any bill for example, to appoint whoever she likes as ministers who can then make all sorts of rules by decree. But in failing ever to exercise that power the whole institution is brought into disrepute and becomes worthless. Similarly, the lords disgraced itself by passing legislation recently it clearly disagreed with.

Its part of the definition of monarchy that the monarch will use power to benefit and protect the position of said monarch, no one should expect otherwise.

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2024 11:52:26 GMT athena said:

Charles III is a vastly wealthy, fantiasticly privileged, opinionated, short-tempered old man with an extremely narrow experience of life. Not so very different from a number of UKPR2 contributors in many ways... but because of who he is, his foibles, biases and failures of understanding are far from innocuous.

Damn, I missed out on the vastly wealthy bit!

[Rafwan]

Danny
Wot me? Support Labour!? Pfft!!

[alec]

pjw1961 - re population & women's rights; that's exactly what Population Matters say as well, along with other valuable measures. Without question though, equalising the rights and opportunities for women is a key objective.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2024 10:33:06 GMT @isa said:

I'm surprised at how readily and rapidly the new 'hung parliament' narrative has seemingly become the received wisdom, despite some obvious flaws in the argument. 

Here, the BBC, in the unlikely form of Justin Webb, puts Maria Caulfield's hat on straight with a couple of telling rebuttals.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/taking-them-for-fools-bbc-presenter-nails-the-big-flaws-in-sunaks-coalition-of-chaos-claim_uk_6638872ee4b0e44cfb124111

Sir John not entirely convinced about the 'hung parliament' idea, either. Still, what does he know?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68964302

[domjg]

May 6, 2024 11:06:52 GMT alec said:

domjg - "In a few years the only place where your population proselytising will be needed will be Africa. You could be a kind of missionary telling them how their culture should be. I'm sure they'll love you for it!"

That's completely wrong. The countries where we need population declines the most are the rich western countries, because the individual levels of consumption here means that the overall population impacts are far greater.

You're point on needing young people is also misguided. I'm old enough to remember all those articles (from about 2 years ago) telling us we were on the verge of a 4th industrial revolution and how universal basic income and a 4 day working week was the future.

We have technologies that mean we can work far more efficiently. We can do much more with far fewer people, freeing up labour for the personal contact jobs that really need human involvement.

There's no point in provoking demographic collapse in wealthy countries with all the terrible problems that would provoke both for these nations and in the wider world due to the resulting instability and economic impact just because you'd like to see a process that is already underway happen nore quickly.

Western nations are rapidly reducing their percentage of world population already. Revolutions are rarely a good idea for anyone involved. Gradual change is much more beneficial for all as we try to adapt as we go.

[jayblanc]

Sunak has claimed that the country is "on course for a Hung Parliament", and they just need to knucle down and tell the nation what Conservatism can do for them.

It's the same energy as a teenager thinking they can do their homework on the bus.

[James E]

May 6, 2024 12:37:09 GMT @isa said:

May 6, 2024 10:33:06 GMT @isa said:

I'm surprised at how readily and rapidly the new 'hung parliament' narrative has seemingly become the received wisdom, despite some obvious flaws in the argument. 

Here, the BBC, in the unlikely form of Justin Webb, puts Maria Caulfield's hat on straight with a couple of telling rebuttals.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/taking-them-for-fools-bbc-presenter-nails-the-big-flaws-in-sunaks-coalition-of-chaos-claim_uk_6638872ee4b0e44cfb124111

Sir John not entirely convinced about the 'hung parliament' idea, either. Still, what does he know?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68964302

Currently, Electoral Calculus show Labour being able to get a majority with a lead of 3%. And this falls to just 1% if you allow for a significant level of Tactical Voting - such as 50% between Lab, LDs and Greens, which is consistent with the recent polling finding from Ashcroft on the proportions of current Lab and LD voters willing to switch.

The same figure of 3% is also the implied lead needed per Survation's March 2024 MRP, which showed Labour gaining 268 seats on an overall 15.3% swing. 

YouGov's most recent MRP with Labour 41% to 27% ahead implies a target of a 6% lead for a majority. This is because of an adjustment they describe as 'unwinding' which adjusts the individual seat figures towards what a Uniform Swing would produce. 

Historically, the apparent UNS-based lead needed for a Labour majority (as detailed below) has been a hugely variable figure. It has shifted by 5-7 points at 3 of the 4 most recent General Elections ( in 2010,2015 and 2019, ), and so far this century has ranged from a lead of 12 points to a deficit of nearly 4 points per the 2005 result. A return to around 3% would bring it close to the long-term average from elections in the past 40 years. The normal pattern is for the figures to shift in favour of the winning party - for example it moved significantly Labour's way in the Blair years.

Post GE2005 -4%
Post GE2010 +2%
Post GE2015 +9%
Post GE2017 +7%
Post GE2019 +12%

[Danny]

May 6, 2024 7:49:10 GMT steve said:

Danny

"coronation"

We have a lot of those do we?

Could be another along sooner rather than later?

[alec]

domjg - "There's no point in provoking demographic collapse in wealthy countries with all the terrible problems that would provoke both for these nations and in the wider world due to the resulting instability and economic impact just because you'd like to see a process that is already underway happen nore quickly."

Well good, because I'm not arguing for demographic collapse - quite the opposite. Yes, population growth is slowing, but we're not yet declining, and so we need a managed program of depopulation. WE need this urgently, as the climate crisis and all that flows from that is getting to a critical point.

[alec]

The FT discusses the mounting twitchiness about the long term impacts of covid on health and the economy - www.ft.com/content/bb09a03d-4a87-4cea-ae87-986769fd4680

These are big hits, with major consequences. While some clung onto the comfort blanket that long covid was only a major issue in the pre vaccine period, the latest data from the most recent wave in multiple countries suggests the overall numbers are still growing.

[steve]

I know it's just a gesture but sometimes it's worth it.


*Lib Dems to table no-confidence motion in government
The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, is to table a motion of no confidence in the government when Parliament returns tomorrow.

The move comes after a pleasing performance for the Lib Dems in last week’s local elections, which saw them add more council seats than any other party over the last parliament, gaining more than 750 in the last five years, largely in the south-west and south of England.

Davey said:

These local elections showed the country has had enough of Rishi Sunak and his out-of-touch Conservative Government.

The Conservatives were pushed into third place for the first time in a generation as Liberal Democrats swept the board in former true blue heartlands. Yet Sunak continues to desperately cling on to power, holed up in Downing Street until the bitter end. "

[steve]

You'll be going to prison traitor.

"Judge Juan Merchan has found Donald Trump in contempt, again, for violating a gag order, and warned the former president that he will consider jail time for any subsequent infraction.

Trump was fined $9,000 last week, $1,000 for each of nine previous violations. Merchan said:

Mr Trump, as you know, the prosecution has filed three separate motions to find you in criminal contempt. It appears that the $1,000 fines are not a deterrent.

You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well... but at the end of the day, I have a job to do and part of that job is to protect the dignity of the judicial system.

Merchan said Trump’s actions “constitute a direct attack on the rule of law [and] I cannot allow that to continue”:

So as much as I do not want to impose a jail sanction... I want you to understand that I will, if necessary, and appropriate."
Attachment Deleted

[steve]

[steve]

"Well good, because I'm not arguing for demographic collapse - quite the opposite. Yes, population growth is slowing, but we're not yet declining, and so we need a managed program of depopulation"


Who shall we start with?
How about people who don't put the toilet seat down in public urinals, or those who only start packing their shopping after they've paid for it at the check out they need to be depopulated.

[somerjohn]

Steve: "How about people who don't put the toilet seat down in public urinals"

That's confusing.

If I was the next one into a toilet booth after the previous occupant had urinated there while standing, sure as hell I'd want him to have put the seat up first, not down.

I've never been a fan of warm splatter.

I'm with you on the checkouts though.

[leftieliberal]

May 6, 2024 14:05:45 GMT steve said:

"Well good, because I'm not arguing for demographic collapse - quite the opposite. Yes, population growth is slowing, but we're not yet declining, and so we need a managed program of depopulation"


Who shall we start with?
How about people who don't put the toilet seat down in public urinals, or those who only start packing their shopping after they've paid for it at the check out they need to be depopulated.

As the Welsh Parliament is considering criminalising lying by politicians, perhaps we could get even more public support for it by making it a capital offence. I suspect public hangings of convicted politicians [1] would be popular and raise a good deal in income if we charged people to attend.  

[1] Or as Shakespeare put it "Let's kill all the lawyers." Henry VI Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

May 6, 2024 11:34:02 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 6, 2024 11:06:52 GMT alec said:

domjg - "In a few years the only place where your population proselytising will be needed will be Africa. You could be a kind of missionary telling them how their culture should be. I'm sure they'll love you for it!"

That's completely wrong. The countries where we need population declines the most are the rich western countries, because the individual levels of consumption here means that the overall population impacts are far greater.

You're point on needing young people is also misguided. I'm old enough to remember all those articles (from about 2 years ago) telling us we were on the verge of a 4th industrial revolution and how universal basic income and a 4 day working week was the future.

We have technologies that mean we can work far more efficiently. We can do much more with far fewer people, freeing up labour for the personal contact jobs that really need human involvement.

Africans, like everyone else, aspire to western levels of consumption and who can blame them. They are not choosing to be poorer than Westerners out of a sense of welfare for the planet. 

The solution to overpopulation is to advance women's rights, status and access to contraception. There is overwhelming evidence that where women have the right to control their own fertility most choose to have fewer children. In turn this requires a relentless opposition to religious and political groups that seek to oppress women. 

there may be additional factors, as it falls below the replacement rate? People also having fewer offspring owing to right-wing economics inflating housing costs, utility costs, transport costs, tuition fees etc. etc….

There may be more of this in the future: corporations snaffling up more and more land to inflate food costs, possibility of AI increasingly trashing the incomes of the middle-class…

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2024 14:05:45 GMT steve said:

"Well good, because I'm not arguing for demographic collapse - quite the opposite. Yes, population growth is slowing, but we're not yet declining, and so we need a managed program of depopulation"


Who shall we start with?
How about people who don't put the toilet seat down in public urinals, or those who only start packing their shopping after they've paid for it at the check out they need to be depopulated.

I do that at the trolley self-checkouts in Tesco; the reason being that any attempt to place bags in the bagging area causes the automated system to have an immediate nervous breakdown and stop working, so I have given up trying. Not at manned checkouts though, when I pack as the stuff is processed. Does that mean I get my sentence commuted to life imprisonment?