You may need to quote a source for that, using the Google chart, I see 58 million in 1997, 67 million in 2021, that's more like 15%. That's not exactly explosive growth for a quarter of a century. Hell, we were at around 55 million in 1970, but we had a long period of flat growth.
Perpetual UK Politics Thread Part Two
- Thread starter SunRaven01
- Start date
-
- Tags
- politics
Have a think about the number you just quoted. The UK, which has a population of 67 million (or so), with an aging population pyramid, is only dying at a rate of 12k a year? Really? No, I'd expect closer to a 1% death rate based on our population, which puts us around 670,000. This turns out to be close to correct.
The target fertility rate to produce a stable population is closer to 2.1. I don't know the correct maths, but I'd imagine a TFR of 1.75 would shrink the population by around 13% per generation. Assuming a flat population pyramid (lol), that would mean the UK would lose around 8 million population per generation, let's say 20 years. So, to maintain a steady population would actually require a net migration of 8 million every 20 years, so around 400,000 per year. My numbers aren't right, so there's hefty error bars, but you can see that 300,000 per year isn't actually all that much, especially since the ONS is assuming long term TFR will look more like 1.6.
Despite doing at least OK for retirement savings (at least compared to the average, which is pretty dismal in the US), I'm afraid I couldn't even pay the maintenance upkeep on a super yacht for more than a few days, much less make it go anywhere. My daughter is still technically a Russian citizen (along with US), but alas doesn't own a RU commodity company. I guess we could be 'temporarily embarrased' oligarchs, but the UK put the kibosh on that visa program primarily due to those abuses.
In researching it a bit more I was completely wrong - there's tons of non-work immigration to the UK, just not from the US. Most is from parts of the far-flung empire, where there is still legal rights to move, or EU citizens still living there. Net immigration from the UK's numbers seems to be way up, unlike some other EU countries. One of the promises of Brexit was immigration control, but that seems to be falling through.
We both just loved the ability to quickly and easily get to just about anywhere in greater London for little money. Coming from one of the worst 1st world places on the planet for mass transit (North Texas), it's a revelation how awesome the tube, bus, and train system in London is. Plus we could breathe there. I grew up here in North Texas, and it seems every year my body rejects the allergens endemic to this area more and more. London has none of them.
Yeah, realised I was citing the weekly rate. Back to the pavillion with me !
Colony is as colony does - years and the chosen label on the political structure are both irrelevant. Where exactly Scotland sits on the scale from subsidised region to oppressed nation may well be debatable, but is ultimately largely irrelevant. While England has never been any kind of righteous benefactor bestowing gifts purely out of the goodness of its heart, the Scots are certainly not the most oppressed people ever, and that's all the UK SC was ever going to need to justify their decision - if there's one thing the UK has perfect historic form at, it's finding the tiniest legal fig leaf for doing whatever it wants.
And in terms of burning ideas, they certainly burned the whole 'UK is a family of nations' / 'voluntary union' / 'equal partners' PR waffle - it was always a legal fiction of course, but now they've said the quiet part out loud.
The UK SC is little more than a speed bump on the executive - it can easily be overruled by parliament on anything that matters by changing the inconvenient law, and even dissolved if it necessary (legally speaking, though it would ruffle some feathers), and the government usually has a more than sufficient majority to do so. And if that wasn't already a through demonstration of its weakness, that something like the Interpretation Bill was a serious proposal should be.
Despite doing at least OK for retirement savings (at least compared to the average, which is pretty dismal in the US), I'm afraid I couldn't even pay the maintenance upkeep on a super yacht for more than a few days, much less make it go anywhere. My daughter is still technically a Russian citizen (along with US), but alas doesn't own a RU commodity company. I guess we could be 'temporarily embarrased' oligarchs, but the UK put the kibosh on that visa program primarily due to those abuses.
In researching it a bit more I was completely wrong - there's tons of non-work immigration to the UK, just not from the US. Most is from parts of the far-flung empire, where there is still legal rights to move, or EU citizens still living there. Net immigration from the UK's numbers seems to be way up, unlike some other EU countries. One of the promises of Brexit was immigration control, but that seems to be falling through.
We both just loved the ability to quickly and easily get to just about anywhere in greater London for little money. Coming from one of the worst 1st world places on the planet for mass transit (North Texas), it's a revelation how awesome the tube, bus, and train system in London is. Plus we could breathe there. I grew up here in North Texas, and it seems every year my body rejects the allergens endemic to this area more and more. London has none of them.
Easiest way into the UK is to move to the Republic of Ireland first, 4 years and ~€2k will get you Irish citizenship, and Irish citizens have the right to live and work in the UK under the CTA. Also, you would also get bonus EU citizenship!
Ah, now you're shifting the goalposts. We weren't talking about Parliamentary sovereignty, we were, in your words, talking about:
The existence of the Interpretation Bill as a serious proposal suggest that, in fact, the SC is quite willing to rule against the government on a contentious issue. As Mr Johnson found out in 2019.
Worth remembering that, somehow, the Irish have managed to conjure up an even worse housing crisis than the UK. Which takes some doing.
Can't speak to a crisis, obviously, but just in browsing listings for sale there's no comparison - I can buy in downtown Dublin for about the same as Dallas, and much, much cheaper in the countryside. London is insane - 7 figures gets you 800 sq ft or less anywhere central. $1M in Ireland gets 3000 - 4000 sq ft anywhere outside the very central-most district of Dublin, and it buys a small estate with a fair bit of acreage anywhere else. Country UK is certainly a lot cheaper than London, but it's still quite a bit more than that according to current listings.
More On Topic, are residents of the Republic of Ireland granted 'live and work' to the UK via EU rules, or is this a separate treaty between the UK and RoI? Irish politics would definitely be off-topic here and a very contentious subject regardless, but I'm curious how... 'permanent' the situation is regarding the (currently) invisible border? Is that something that could go away in the future - i.e., a physical border going up between EU Ireland and UK Northern Ireland?
I was assuming renting, which is a bin fire.
Nothing to do with the EU. It's a separate and long pre-existing treaty between the RoI and UK. It's also reciprocal - UK citizens can live and work in Ireland as well.
It's unlikely to change much. The GFA doesn't actually say much about the border, but there's a whole host of practical reasons which'd make it a difficult prospect. Of course, the border could disappear entirely if a border poll supported unification.
Can confirm, thats a major reason I'm back in Liverpool after 8 years in Dublin.
Well, Dublin is not Dallas or London. You will pay more tax on your income than both London and Texas, and the cost of living is higher as well. Also, its an island with a small population - no next day Amazon Prime etc.
And said unification is unlikely to happen for the next 10 to 15 years: The majority of people in Eire that support unification have a preference -- a very, very strong preference -- for it to happen not now but in 10 to 15 years, and they have very good reasons related to the economy of Northern Ireland and internal peace for this.
I have to wonder if that time-frame relates to some actual prospect of economic improvement, or if it's just about awful old people dying off.
Big result for Labour in Chester:
View: https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1598495333725753346
In other news, the PM wasn't wearing a World Aids Day ribbon on his lapel yesterday at PMQs. When questioned about it, the PM's spox came out with this bizarre justification:
Which is a hilariously easy to disprove lie! Obviously there's poppies in the run up to Rememberance Day. He wore the World Aids Day ribbon last year. Even his Twitter page's banner is a picture of him wearing a lapel pin.
Why on earth would they choose to lie in such a transparent way rather than simply saying something like "it fell off on the way into the chamber"? Bizarre.
View: https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1598495333725753346
In other news, the PM wasn't wearing a World Aids Day ribbon on his lapel yesterday at PMQs. When questioned about it, the PM's spox came out with this bizarre justification:
source
Which is a hilariously easy to disprove lie! Obviously there's poppies in the run up to Rememberance Day. He wore the World Aids Day ribbon last year. Even his Twitter page's banner is a picture of him wearing a lapel pin.
Why on earth would they choose to lie in such a transparent way rather than simply saying something like "it fell off on the way into the chamber"? Bizarre.
Sajid Javid has announced that he's standing down at the next election. A fairly big beast these days, possibly aware that he may be blamed by quite a lot of the membership for being a key part of the Johnson Removals Service earlier this year and that he's not likely to get much of a run at leader. His majority was very safe in 2019, though I don't know if it's affected by boundary changes.
It all feels a bit John Major 1996 right now. Even the small things seem to be going wrong, a lot of Tory MPs seem to be checking out from their jobs or preparing for opposition, and think tanks and CEOs are sounding like they're aiming to influence the Opposition as much as the government.
It can all change quite fast, but until it does, it's government as punching bag for a bit.
EDIT: The Sun and TalkTV also reporting a "senior Tory backbencher" has been reported to the police by colleagues over allegations of rape and sexual assault. I doubt I'll live long enough to see the Conservative party totally disintegrate, but this really has a feel of failure cascade in terms of public image.
It all feels a bit John Major 1996 right now. Even the small things seem to be going wrong, a lot of Tory MPs seem to be checking out from their jobs or preparing for opposition, and think tanks and CEOs are sounding like they're aiming to influence the Opposition as much as the government.
It can all change quite fast, but until it does, it's government as punching bag for a bit.
EDIT: The Sun and TalkTV also reporting a "senior Tory backbencher" has been reported to the police by colleagues over allegations of rape and sexual assault. I doubt I'll live long enough to see the Conservative party totally disintegrate, but this really has a feel of failure cascade in terms of public image.
Yeah, although Sunak got nodded in by the MPs he doesn't actually seem to have enough support from them to do anything.
The Tories have a whacking great majority but the leader can't get legislation past his own party because they're so factional at this point that there's always enough of them in opposed factions to scupper it.
The Tories have a whacking great majority but the leader can't get legislation past his own party because they're so factional at this point that there's always enough of them in opposed factions to scupper it.
And if my math is/maths are right, that makes at least 3 unnamed Tory MPs under investigation or charged with serious sexual assault-related offences and not yet resolved, plus the Pincher saga, plus Elphicke, plus probably some others I've forgotten. Inability to govern plus a public reputation for harbouring MPs under criminal investigation for sexual assault is quite a combination.
Not to say those investigations only ever happen to Tories, but at least in Major's day, "sleaze" seemed to be mostly people having extra-marital affairs or taking cash for questions. Not multiple accusations of sexual assault.
Not to say those investigations only ever happen to Tories, but at least in Major's day, "sleaze" seemed to be mostly people having extra-marital affairs or taking cash for questions. Not multiple accusations of sexual assault.
Which is a very good example of 'stick a rosette on a dead duck and they'd get in' - the winner for Labour, Dixon, had been a long time councillor and leader of the local council; said council did a great job over the years towards wrecking as much of Chester as they could (speculative 'modern' building projects, large scale tree felling, a fetish for messing around motorists that would make Sadiq Khan happy, horrible decisions on planning and development applications, relentless tax hikes for their consultant friends' pay packets). They did such a good job, that Labour lost control of the council in 2019.
She then wins election as an MP despite a record of utterly terrible decision making, and gets a nice big pay increase and all of the money she wants to hose away in expenses.
There's someting to be said for restricting the right to vote to those that can pass simple questionnaires. Something like 'here are six randomised questions about the candidates and their positions - answer all six correctly and get your voting papers'. If nothing else, it'd reduce the rewarding of failure like this (they'd have to rely on getting into the House of Lords instead...)
/rant !
So you're saying somebody who's not very good or charismatic still managed a huge swing that lead to the best result for Labour in that constituency for decades? Sounds like bad times for the Tories.
So who gets to pick the questions, and how do you keep them from discriminating against certain viewpoints/parties?
America has examples of poll tests you can look at to see how the concept was perverted.
Well, yes, but more that the individual politician is irrelevant a lot of the time; people are voting for the team colour. I don't think Sam Dixon being the labour candidate made a blind bit of difference (unless people in Chester really are masochists).
Honestly I hadn't thought that far ahead - if you want we could register a consultancy under a brass plaque somewhere, get six or seven figures out of the Home Office to think about discussing it ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63838387
Seems to boil down to "doing things wrong, and in a rush to do wrong things". Nothing new, but nicely collected.
Seems to boil down to "doing things wrong, and in a rush to do wrong things". Nothing new, but nicely collected.
Or we could just throw out the idea as a solution in search of a problem that is likely to spawn many problems of its own.
The problem is that a politician with a terrible record was elected in the constituency that has brone the brunt of their terrible record, because 'hurr durr blue ones bad this week'.
There were other candidates to vote for on that ballot - some totally inoffensive - but that would have required more engagement than 'blue box bad, tick red box'.
The only way to fix that problem is by forcing engagement by the voter; the quality of political types will only increase when the poor quality ones realise that the electorate have started to pay attention, and their pay & benefits trough is at risk.
When someone complains about elected officials doing bad things to "motorists", a warning rings in my head : I don't know the specifics in this town, but here in France it is too often a coded message of the right (not right-of-center right...) and far right.
This just reads like grapes so sour that you're willing to disenfranchise other citizens for not agreeing with you.
It's perfectly rational for local voters to decide that national cockups are even more worrisome than alleged past local incompetence.
Last edited by a moderator:
First past the post as a voting system makes two party politics practically inevitable, even with an engaged electorate. Why vote third party and take the risk that your least favourite candidate wins. Engagement will come when voters feel that their vote makes a difference
Or even actual past incompetence. Maybe Chester really wants a Labour government now. If they do, voting for Dixon was totally rational. The only question is why would Labour put up a candidate that MethuenofMelnibone doesn't like? As a MP of a minority party, Dixon's not going to do any harm to Chester, and everybody who'd rather have a Labour government than a Tory one (more than 60% of voters!).
If everybody that voted for Dixon had stayed home, they'd have Wardlaw for MP. If they'd spread across the other candidates, there are multiple ways Wardlaw could have lost. You could have had Howling Laud Hope, I guess.
Ugh. We need a YIMBY revolution, but homebuyers have been sold on the asset class constantly appreciating.
I think a lot of people have mixed feelings. The strikes will be disruptive, and at Christmas, too. OTOH, the pay offers being disputed are absolutely derisory (the offer being disputed by the RMT union is 8% over two years, which is shocking when you consider inflation is running at circa 10% - not to mention the job losses that go with it).
Also, you have to really work at it to piss the nurses off enough to consider industrial action.
<Rishi Sunak>: challenge accepted.
Also, you have to really work at it to piss the nurses off enough to consider industrial action.
<Rishi Sunak>: challenge accepted.
Last edited:
It will be a bit of a pain, but I’m generally on the side of the strikers. Most public sector workers have had a raw deal over the last decade and are now falling even further behind.
As a result of government actions along with the world situation, the UK is now poorer. They are asking ordinary workers to bear the brunt of that fall. Funnily enough, they are objecting.
As a result of government actions along with the world situation, the UK is now poorer. They are asking ordinary workers to bear the brunt of that fall. Funnily enough, they are objecting.
I suspect there's going to be a surprising amount of public support for these strikes. A lot of these workers have suffered a lost decade at best in living standards and are now being expected to take another big hit to their living standards. Living standards in the U.K. have only just (or not quite) recovered to 2008 levels and are now heading back down. There's a very good chance that means we're looking at 2 lost decades when it comes to living standards.