Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Gloster]

Dominic Cummings is due to give evidence at the Covid enquiry tomorrow. (Yes, the enquiry is still running, despite the media being more concerned with much more important matters, such as someone dying in Hollywood.) Unless he has been nobbled, he is likely to throw an awful lot of dirt at at Johnson, some of it probably true, but will he throw enough at Sunak or even leave him guilty by association? We know that Johnson is utterly incapable of shame, but one wonders if Sunak or enough of those in the cabinet will finally say, ”That’s it. We just can’t keep on running the country after all that was revealed.” Probably not, but could the backbenchers and constituency parties finally give up and cut the ground from under them?

 

[Merle Haggard]

What about all the IRA bombs?

Indeed. I was quite close to two; in the case of the Regent's Park bomb, fortuitously slightly delayed by a faulty ATM on the way, and the Four Leaf Clover one on Euston when I was crossing the concourse. Not to mention the siege/hostage near '222'. But everybody working in Central London experienced that sort of thing, as well as the constant station closures (particularly Euston) as a result of a bomb warning.

All bankrolled by 'Irish - Americans' through Noraid, centred on Boston, Mass, U.S.A. for fundraising. And the I.R.A. leaders were invited to meetings at the White House. Obviously freedom fighting not terrorism from a U.S. perspective.

 

[The Ham]

If the Tory party want to announce pre-election tax cuts the only way they can do so is right before an election, as there is no fiscal room for them in a formal budget. Therefore I still think May/June is most likely, so cuts can be announced earlier in the Spring.

I don't recall where, but some of the latest polls were suggesting that a significant number of people (IIRC 63%) wanted more government spending and some tax rises (or at least no change in taxes) Vs (again if IIRC 16%) who wanted tax cuts.

If those numbers are about where the nation is at, tax cuts may not necessarily help the Tories as much as they think.

 

[Enthusiast]

Which I have always found weird as with an aging population , we need anyone who can to come here, work and pay tax to support the baby bombers socially in old age.

There's just one minor snag with that strategy. "Anyone who can" come here to work is unlikely to leave and (incredible as it may seem) will eventually join the aging population. They will then need support which, according to that strategy, can only be provided by a new generation of "anybody who can" come here to work.

The country needs an economic model which does not rely on an ever-increasing population because it is simply unsustainable. And that's before you begin to consider the morality of denuding other countries of their young workers, especially those in the health and care sectors.

 

[bspahh]

There's just one minor snag with that strategy. "Anyone who can" come here to work is unlikely to leave and (incredible as it may seem) will eventually join the aging population. They will then need support which, according to that strategy, can only be provided by a new generation of "anybody who can" come here to work.

The country needs an economic model which does not rely on an ever-increasing population because it is simply unsustainable. And that's before you begin to consider the morality of denuding other countries of their young workers, especially those in the health and care sectors.

The UK needs an economic model which does not lead to an ever-decreasing population. The UK birth rate was 1.63 children per woman in 2019, when it needs to be ~ 2.1 to maintain a steady population without immigration.

 

[Yew]

The UK needs an economic model which does not lead to an ever-decreasing population. The UK birth rate was 1.63 children per woman in 2019, when it needs to be ~ 2.1 to maintain a steady population without immigration.

Maybe the consequences of decades of below inflation wage rises are coming to roost?

 

[najaB]

What about all the IRA bombs?

The CIA or NSA couldn't really do much to help there.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The CIA or NSA couldn't really do much to help there.

Yes they very much could - as my post no 5102 states, the bombers were enabled by donations to Noraid, the fund raising centre for which was Boston, U.S.A.
But they clearly were not wiling to.

 

[The Ham]

There's just one minor snag with that strategy. "Anyone who can" come here to work is unlikely to leave and (incredible as it may seem) will eventually join the aging population. They will then need support which, according to that strategy, can only be provided by a new generation of "anybody who can" come here to work.

The country needs an economic model which does not rely on an ever-increasing population because it is simply unsustainable. And that's before you begin to consider the morality of denuding other countries of their young workers, especially those in the health and care sectors.

I fear you may have missed my post in which I replied to that, so here it is again:

Indeed, although (before anyone questions this) this also doesn't mean unlimited immigration, in that you can want to have the working age population be (say) 63% of the total population today and slowly fall to 61% of the total population over 20 years, rather than it fall to 58% over (say) 10 years.

From 2025 it's expected that there'll be more births than deaths, so (say) in 20 years time to maintain a broadly flat working age population (i.e. having a small fall but nothing too significant) there's a need to have people coming here to work.

Arguably it's "better" to have students come here to study at university and then stay here for work rather than people have children and the state have to pay for them to be raised and educated. Of course, that would mean competition for those who already live here and that isn't what the right want.

Ultimately there's a LOT of grey between no one coming here and increasing the population by significant numbers each week.

Just because someone suggests that there's a need for some people to move here to sustain the working age population, didn't mean that they want an extra 100,000 to arrive each day for the next 100 years.

Arguably, if we could get enough people from overseas to come here and tax them at a higher rate than we do for the native population (say there's no tax free allowance for those born overseas, which would give the native population a circa £2,500 advantage) we could even give the native population universal income (which would boost that advantage further) and maybe even give those from overseas a higher retirement age, so that no one from overseas could undercut the native population when it came to pay. (Clearly this would never be practical, but it's probably a "better"* strategy for the country than having no one from overseas working here - which is also not practical).

* note "better" - being kneecapped is "better" than being shot in the head

 

[najaB]

Yes they very much could - as my post no 5102 states, the bombers were enabled by donations to Noraid, the fund raising centre for which was Boston, U.S.A.
But they clearly were not wiling to.

Which neither the CIA nor the NSA were in any position to do anything about.

 

[birchesgreen]

Which neither the CIA nor the NSA were in any position to do anything about.

Yes would have been an FBI matter, though the NSA could have had an involvement there. But still nothing was done no matter the letter agency.

 

[najaB]

Yes would have been an FBI matter, though the NSA could have had an involvement there. But still nothing was done no matter the letter agency.

Which goes back to my original point, which was about Five Eyes and intelligence sharing, rather than the FBI and criminal action.

 

[takno]

Which goes back to my original point, which was about Five Eyes and intelligence sharing, rather than the FBI and criminal action.

I think the main issue with the original post was the weird claim that the UK has had fewer terror attacks than most other European countries. It might be true of France, but I'm struggling to think of anywhere else. In any case the vast majority of terror attacks everywhere appear to have been committed by radicalized locals who were generally at least known to the local security forces.

We make a lot of compromises to be a part of 5 eyes in terms of cost and generally chilling effects on civil liberties for a fairly questionable return. Extending that to letting a bunch of spies decide when we have our democratic elections seems like a step too far to me.

 

[najaB]

I think the main issue with the original post was the weird claim that the UK has had fewer terror attacks than most other European countries. It might be true of France, but I'm struggling to think of anywhere else.

Germany comes to mind. Sweden and Spain too.

Extending that to letting a bunch of spies decide when we have our democratic elections seems like a step too far to me.

The job of the intelligence services is to provide information and advice to governments. At the end of the day the PM can take that advice or ignore it.

 

[takno]

Germany comes to mind. Sweden and Spain too.

The job of the intelligence services is to provide information and advice to governments. At the end of the day the PM can take that advice or ignore it.

Spain had some serious attacks around the same time that we did, and nothing hugely noticeable since. Aside from the Atocha bombing, Spain has suffered noticeably less from terrorism than it did under ETA. Sweden has some issues, although it's relatively specialist and likely short-term in nature, and in the case of the most recent attack wasn't even in Sweden, and it's very questionable whether they are on a larger scale or a bigger issue their problem with semi-organised crime. The number of attacks being suffered in Europe as a result of organised international networks, or even being driven by international issues and ideologies, is a fraction of the number of attacks by random nutcases driven by domestic politics, which is itself a fraction of the nutcases with a semi-automatic axe to grind in their families and local communities.

European countries could choose to spend more on their security services, and the fact that they haven't done probably reflects their recognition that it's a less efficient or effective way of protecting their people than normal policing. 5 eyes for them would just be doubling down on the waste.

All of which is likely fairly irrelevant, since it's completely unclear whether anybody apart from some ageing fantasists in Whitehall and the national press actually cares about the timing of our election. And even if they do, they are more likely to be concerned about Russian social media black-ops than a physical attack

 

[nw1]

The UK needs an economic model which does not lead to an ever-decreasing population. The UK birth rate was 1.63 children per woman in 2019, when it needs to be ~ 2.1 to maintain a steady population without immigration.

Controversial opinion time, perhaps.

Arguably, UK citizens having less children could be seen as good, if you view immigration as a good thing - as it lessens one of the key objections of anti-immigrationists (the over-population argument).

 

[Busaholic]

Controversial opinion time, perhaps.

Arguably, UK citizens having less children could be seen as good, if you view immigration as a good thing - as it lessens one of the key objections of anti-immigrationists (the over-population argument).

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the decline in the U.K.'s birthrate is a good thing, but I certainly see reasonably free immigration, and its converse migration, as a good and needed thing. That's not to say a completely open doors policy should exist.

 

[SteveP29]

Now it costs a vast amount of money and appears designed to put people off trying at all.

Unless you're minted and willing to chuck thousands at the Tory party

 

[Enthusiast]

The UK needs an economic model which does not lead to an ever-decreasing population. The UK birth rate was 1.63 children per woman in 2019, when it needs to be ~ 2.1 to maintain a steady population without immigration.

The country does not need to maintain a steady population. It needs a declining population.

There is currently a severe lack of housing, appalling waiting lists for healthcare treatment, over-subscribed schools and many other public services are struggling badly to cope. None of these problems are likely to be solved in the foreseeable future, if at all and the country clearly cannot properly support the current population level. A continually increasing population is simply unsustainable (whether the increase comes from a higher birth rate or immigration). The argument that it must increase to support an aging population is the only justification for it and it is that which must be addressed in the reassessment of the country's economic model. If it isn't, the problem of caring for an aging population will become insignificant because the country will be increasingly unable to properly care for its younger members.

 

[Magdalia]

The country does not need to maintain a steady population. It needs a declining population.

Be very careful what you wish for.

Population isn't just about the total: what matters particularly is, as the statisticians say, how it is broken down by age and sex.

I have said before, and I'll say it again. If you only ever look at one graph in your life it needs to be figure 4 here from the 2021 UK census:

Population and household estimates, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Census 2021 rounded population and household estimates for local authorities in England and Wales, by sex and five-year age group.

www.ons.gov.uk

The trend of population ageing has continued, with more people than ever before in the older age groups. Over one-sixth (18.6%, 11.1 million) of the population in 2021 were aged 65 years and over, up from 16.4% (9.2 million) in 2011. The size of the population aged 90 years and over (527,900, 0.9% of the population) has increased since 2011, when 429,017, 0.8%, were aged 90 years and over.

Nearly two-thirds (64.1%) of the population in 2021 (38.2 million) were aged 15 to 64 years. There are more people in this age group compared with 2011 (when 37.0 million people were aged 15 to 64 years), but as a proportion of the overall population there has been a slight decrease in the size of this group (65.9% in 2011).

The remaining 17.4% of the population (10.4 million) were aged under 15 years. There are more people in this age group compared with 2011, however, as a proportion of the overall population, the size of the group has decreased (9.9 million, 17.6%, in 2011).

The UK has an unfunded state pension system, and a bulge of people in the 50-59 age group, approaching retirement (the "baby boomers"). Without a birth rate above replacement rate, and/or some inward migration, the ratio of economically active population to economically inactive population will plummet. Allow that ratio to fall too much and the UK state pension system and all of UK public finances will become unsustainable.

Unless you would like to work until you are 75?

If it isn't, the problem of caring for an aging population will become insignificant because the country will be increasingly unable to properly care for its younger members.

And with a declining population, who do you think is going to do this? I suggest that you take a look at what is happening in Japan and South Korea, where population is already declining.

What the graph shows is that the UK does not have enough people in two age groups: the under 5s and 15-24 year olds. Now is the time to rectify that with a higher birth rate and a bit of net inward migration, migrants predominantly being young adults. The UK population will start to decline naturally once the "baby boomer" generation starts to die in large numbers.

Figure 4 is usually called the population pyramid, and it needs to be shaped like that, with more people at the bottom than the top. When it starts to look more like a tree it is bad news.

 

[ainsworth74]

The UK has an unfunded state pension system, and a bulge of people in the 50-59 age group, approaching retirement (the "baby boomers").

Whilst I generally agree with you wider post on a point of order whilst the definition is somewhat fluid most definitions take the baby boomers to be those born between 1946 and 1964 in which case most of that age group in 2021 were not baby boomers. Only the 57+ would meet the definition. Even in 2021 the overwhelming majority of baby boomers were already 60+. As I said though I agree with your wider well made points!

 

[nw1]

Be very careful what you wish for.

Population isn't just about the total: what matters particularly is, as the statisticians say, how it is broken down by age and sex.

I have said before, and I'll say it again. If you only ever look at one graph in your life it needs to be figure 4 here from the 2021 UK census:

Population and household estimates, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Census 2021 rounded population and household estimates for local authorities in England and Wales, by sex and five-year age group.

www.ons.gov.uk

The UK has an unfunded state pension system, and a bulge of people in the 50-59 age group, approaching retirement (the "baby boomers").

Point of order: "baby boomers" are not currently 50-59. It's generally understood to be the generation born from around 1945-60, so we're talking about people currently in their 60s and 70s.

The generation born from around 1960-80 is Generation X, and I understood there to actually be a "baby bust" in this generation.

For people of the 45-55 generation, certainly, baby boomers are understood to be their parents' generation - and I doubt many of us would particuarly appreciate being labelled a baby boomer!

(EDIT: I see @ainsworth74 has said much the same thing)

And as I said, the solution to the problem IMO is more immigration. I suspect future governments will realise this once the current fashion for reactionary right-wing politics has faded.

 

[jfollows]

Point of order: "baby boomers" are not currently 50-59. It's generally understood to be the generation born from around 1945-60, so we're talking about people currently in their 60s and 70s.

The generation born from around 1960-80 is Generation X, and I understood there to actually be a "baby bust" in this generation.

For people of the 45-55 generation, certainly, baby boomers are understood to be their parents' generation - and I doubt many of us would particuarly appreciate being labelled a baby boomer!

I refuse to acknowledge such lazy terms as "baby boomer" or "generation X" as being applicable to me, they are just vague terms often used in a lazy and haphazard manner when more precise terms exist (such as you quote). Because of this vagueness I don't actually know what any of them mean, but I'm sure they don't have the sort of precision you want to attribute to them.

On the point made, I was born in 1961, I'm retired but living off my own pension and won't be taking the state pension until I'm 67, but I'm aware of the issue in that fewer people are funding the state pension and I firmly believe we need more immigration of people likely to be "economically active". The Conservative party seems to be in opposition to this, and it has its supporters who will probably always vote for it.

 

[nw1]

I refuse to acknowledge such lazy terms as "baby boomer" or "generation X" as being applicable to me, they are just vague terms often used in a lazy and haphazard manner when more precise terms exist (such as you quote). Because of this vagueness I don't actually know what any of them mean, but I'm sure they don't have the sort of precision you want to attribute to them.

I agree but was just trying to refute the idea that "baby boomers" are 50-59, which is absolutely not the case whatever definition you use.

 

[Magdalia]

Whilst I generally agree with you wider post on a point of order whilst the definition is somewhat fluid most definitions take the baby boomers to be those born between 1946 and 1964 in which case most of that age group in 2021 were not baby boomers. Only the 57+ would meet the definition. Even in 2021 the overwhelming majority of baby boomers were already 60+. As I said though I agree with your wider well made points!

oint of order: "baby boomers" are not currently 50-59. It's generally understood to be the generation born from around 1945-60, so we're talking about people currently in their 60s and 70s.

As a cultural phenomenon you are correct, but the origins of that cultural phenomenon are US not UK.

Demographically the baby boom comes later in the UK than in the US because the UK economy took longer to recover from World War II. Apart from the big 1946/47 spike the boom in births in the UK is much more 1955-73, and the peak is in 1964. See figure 1 here:

Births in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Live births and stillbirths annual summary statistics.

www.ons.gov.uk

Figure 1: The number of live births has decreased over the last decade​

Number of live births, England and Wales, 1838 to 2022​

The Abortion Act in 1968 was a significant factor in the decline in births.

It is the demography that I'm talking about, not the culture.

 

[SynthD]

The pensioner voter bloc are very used to receiving pension rises that are not compatible with a low birth rate. Sunak is expected to announce he’ll continue that policy. If we were to accept a low birth rate we need to start steering the new direction, not vote buying.

The Abortion Act in 1968 was a significant factor in the decline in births.

Is that instead because the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967 legalised birth control and permitted women’s freedoms, including family planning?

 

[Merle Haggard]

The pensioner voter bloc are very used to receiving pension rises that are not compatible with a low birth rate.

Only since 2011. Remember Brown's 10p increase?

 

[gg1]

The pensioner voter bloc are very used to receiving pension rises that are not compatible with a low birth rate.

The benefits of being part of a demographic who are statistically more likely to exercise their right to vote than people of working age.

 

[najaB]

Is that instead because the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967 legalised birth control and permitted women’s freedoms, including family planning?

I suspect that both played their role. Either way, giving women control over their own fertility was a huge change to society, and one that definitely had far more benefits than drawbacks.

 

[nw1]

As a cultural phenomenon you are correct, but the origins of that cultural phenomenon are US not UK.

Demographically the baby boom comes later in the UK than in the US because the UK economy took longer to recover from World War II. Apart from the big 1946/47 spike the boom in births in the UK is much more 1955-73, and the peak is in 1964. See figure 1 here:

Births in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Live births and stillbirths annual summary statistics.

www.ons.gov.uk

The Abortion Act in 1968 was a significant factor in the decline in births.

It is the demography that I'm talking about, not the culture.

Even still, "baby boomer" is very much a cultural term and it's use is confusing when applied to people born in the late 60s and early 70s.