Your voting intentions

[Hants PHer]

I am alright Jack said:

Nowhere does it say "14% of people polled think Reform are a worthy party" any more than it said 44% actually want Labour in power.

I can only imagine some of that 14% just don't want to vote for the main two, some will be fed up with conservatives and just don't want to vote for "the left"

Labour are not going to win the election, Conservatives are going to lose it.

Indeed. A few folk that I know - who always voted Conservative until now - are disgusted by the current Tories. However, they will never vote Labour, yet do not wish to abstain or spoil their vote. They regard Reform as a protest against ALL the traditional parties; how rational that is is debateable, but that's the sentiment.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

Some of the Reform candidates are borderline Fascist I'd say. Actual fascists not the populist use of the word these days.

[Mr Penguin]

Reform haven't announced many candidates yet, so the vote will fall when the ones who are scraping the barrel say something stupid (established parties having deeper barrels).

I can name three people associated with them - Farage, Tice, and Widdecombe. I only know about Widdecombe because she was in News in Pictures in The Times yesterday. How many of those 14% can beat three without Googling?

[bitchstewie]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Some of the Reform candidates are borderline Fascist I'd say. Actual fascists not the populist use of the word these days.

Nah it's the Conservatives that have gone soft and turned socialist Reform candidates tend to be pretty centrist maybe a tiny little bit to the right of centre

[Jordie Barretts sock]

I'm not in the 14% but I remember the chap on tv saying he'd let the dinghy people drown. Deputy Leader isn't he? Can't name him though.

[bitchstewie]

Ben Habib.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

Yeah that's him.

[Kermit power]

768 said:

Kermit power said:

You're missing my point. Like any country we've got challenges of course, but we remain one of the greatest, wealthiest places to live on the planet.

One of the wealthiest by GDP, I'd agree. Yet we fall significantly when you look at purchasing power parity. And I don't think that picture is improving.

Kermit power said:

Where that passes from sad to dangerous is when people start to believe, for example, that the country is "full" with no more space for immigrants despite the fact that we've got half the population density of the Netherlands, for example, and a rapidly ageing population that, without immigration, will leave the country unable to operate within a few generations.

When people refer to the country being full it's not about population density. It's capacity for GP appointments, A&E, NHS dentists, the roads, state schools, trains. Our population has increased far faster than that capacity.

The planet as a whole has an ageing population. We have to adapt to that, I don't think harvesting lower GDP counties of their working age population is the right answer.

Okay, looking at PPP, we're Sixth amongst the G20 Nations or 5th if you discount the distorted reality of Saudi Arabia. We're ahead of France, South Korea & Japan, for example. Yes, of course it could be better, but it's certainty not "Bankrupt Britain" or any of the usual hyperbolic claptrap.

Public resource capacity is a very reasonable concern, but immigration isn't the root cause, it's our population demographics, both in terms of ageing and geographical spread.

To give an analogy, if you get cancer, you may well end up on chemotherapy. If your hair falls out and you feel sick that's because of the chemo, but if you stop the chemo, it's the cancer that's going to really fk you up.

Unfortunately both our main parties know that addressing the demographic problem - whether by getting people to have more kids or by making them to work significantly longer - is really difficult and/or expensive and/or going to cost them lots of votes and also going to take them much longer than the term of a single parliament, so instead of doing the sensible, grown up thing and agreeing to make population demographics a cross-party strategic concern that they work on together regardless of who is in power, they effectively argue over whether or not to use Chemo whilst the electorate get pissed off with the side effects of Chemo because the government hasn't properly explained to them what the cancer will do to them if they don't have the Chemo.

The whole thing is currently stacked against us. We've not been having enough kids to stabilise our population since 1970, but in the same time frame average life expectancy has increased significantly whilst State retirement age has stayed flat and actual retirement age dropped for many as the Boomer generation freed up large amounts of capital by downsizing to the country.

That all means that not only are there fewer taxpayers to fund pensions and the NHS, all those pensioners still need people doing all of the jobs that they used to do themselves. The number of working people per pensioner has already halved since 1950, and that's with all the immigration.

Global population isn't yet ageing - latest global reproduction rate is 2.2, with break-even being 2.1 - but the RR is falling quickly. What we really need is a government with the balls to say:

1. We need to take long term action to reverse our falling birth-rate.

2. That might be painful - possibly very painful for some - in the short to medium term - but things will be a LOT more painful for ALL in the long run if we don't fix it.

3. It's not a short fix. Children take 18+ years to become adults and enter the workforce.

4. In the meantime, immigration is going to be required to fill the gaps. Whether you like that or not, we simply do not have a choice.

5. Once we've got our RR back above 2.2 and the first generation of new babies has hit the workforce we can look at reducing or stopping immigration.

[Evanivitch]

Silvanus said:

I have no love for the two main parties, but I cannot fathom why 14% of people polled think Reform are a worthy party, the candidates are an absolute bunch of loons.

UKIP had 12.6% in 2015.

My biggest concern about Reform is that they will become a lightening rod for a single policy. Much like UKIP were for EU membership. But I suspect it will be on the Net Zero plans. So, like EU, there'll be a growing element in the Tory party to abandon net zero and start extracting coal and oil again. And that'll become the 2029 election battleground.

[Evanivitch]

Kermit power said:

1. We need to take long term action to reverse our falling birth-rate.

Why? I would say we need to do the opposite. Make old age better. Make old age more efficient. Better investment in homes for the elderly, care for the elderly, and end of life choices. Automation, AI, overall population health.

And the inventive for younger people is we reduce the social care bill, we improve productivity (the work needed caring for the elderly as a family member or professionally has little economic benefit) and makes family homes available (because right now bungalows offer a silly premium and often none of the benefits of a larger property like a decent garden).

[turbobloke]

Evanivitch said:

Silvanus said:

I have no love for the two main parties, but I cannot fathom why 14% of people polled think Reform are a worthy party, the candidates are an absolute bunch of loons.

UKIP had 12.6% in 2015.

My biggest concern about Reform is that they will become a lightening rod for a single policy. Much like UKIP were for EU membership. But I suspect it will be on the Net Zero plans. So, like EU, there'll be a growing element in the Tory party to abandon net zero and start extracting coal and oil again. And that'll become the 2029 election battleground.

Or indeed this election.

Liz Truss out and about

[Evanivitch]

turbobloke said:

Or indeed this election.

Liz Truss out and about

Oh Liz

[Mr Penguin]

Net zero is very expensive and there is very little serious discussion of the cost of achieving it.

https://obr.uk/box/the-fiscal-cost-of-net-zero-in-...

[Kermit power]

Evanivitch said:

Kermit power said:

1. We need to take long term action to reverse our falling birth-rate.

Why? I would say we need to do the opposite. Make old age better. Make old age more efficient. Better investment in homes for the elderly, care for the elderly, and end of life choices. Automation, AI, overall population health.

And the inventive for younger people is we reduce the social care bill, we improve productivity (the work needed caring for the elderly as a family member or professionally has little economic benefit) and makes family homes available (because right now bungalows offer a silly premium and often none of the benefits of a larger property like a decent garden).

Because each generation's old age is paid for by the one below it, so the burden is increasing generation on generation.

Because people push back so hard when told they have to work significantly longer that governments are now too scared to do more than add on a token year here or there.

Because life expectancy has dramatically outstripped healthy life expectancy, and nowhere seems to have cracked that problem.

Because automation can only ever go so far, and there will be a million more people reaching retirement age in the next 15 years than kids coming through to replace them.

Etc...

[768]

Kermit power said:

Okay, looking at PPP, we're Sixth amongst the G20 Nations or 5th if you discount the distorted reality of Saudi Arabia. We're ahead of France, South Korea & Japan, for example. Yes, of course it could be better, but it's certainty not "Bankrupt Britain" or any of the usual hyperbolic claptrap.

In other words we've fallen to 27th, despite GDP only having fallen to sixth so far.

Kermit power said:

Public resource capacity is a very reasonable concern, but immigration isn't the root cause, it's our population demographics, both in terms of ageing and geographical spread.

Doubt an ageing population is taking up many school places, or even much road space. Doctors appointments maybe, but immigration is responsible for the majority of population growth and projected to become over 90% of it. Immigrants get old too.

Kermit power said:

Global population isn't yet ageing - latest global reproduction rate is 2.2, with break-even being 2.1 - but the RR is falling quickly.

That's replacement birth rate, it's a separate issue from an ageing population. The world's population is ageing and it's increasing.

[Evanivitch]

Kermit power said:

Because each generation's old age is paid for by the one below it, so the burden is increasing generation on generation.

Pensions wise, we've halfway fixed that already by getting rid of DB pensions. DC pensions mean it very much is your money in a pot. I don't expect the state pension. To survive past 2045, I expect it'll just become another benefit based in your income from private pensions and ability to work.

The key point I was trying to make, is that it's the cost of social care (financially and responsibility within families) for elderly people that is unsustainable.

Kermit power said:

Because automation can only ever go so far, and there will be a million more people reaching retirement age in the next 15 years than kids coming through to replace them.

Etc...

I agree automation can only go so far, but consider at gome care has carers visiting 3-4 times a day to wake, dress, feed, wash and out to bed the frail. There has to be a better way. Not only that, but it's back breaking work. And on balance, we need to address social isolator too.

[Mr Whippy]

It’s a shame all the stay at home won’t vote spoil paper.

Imagine if 25% of people said not any of them… maybe they’d get the message!


But yes, country screwed in any case. Too many needy people and waste.
Without the equivalent of a technological/geopolitical “lottery win” the toilet beckons.

[S600BSB]

Hants PHer said:

Indeed. A few folk that I know - who always voted Conservative until now - are disgusted by the current Tories. However, they will never vote Labour, yet do not wish to abstain or spoil their vote. They regard Reform as a protest against ALL the traditional parties; how rational that is is debateable, but that's the sentiment.

Good for them. A vote for Reform makes sense.

[turbobloke]

Labour's PH poll lead is back to single figures at 31 to 22. What are they doing right?

[bitchstewie]

You think a poll of 900 people on a car forum populated by generally older, generally white, generally better off, and generally right leaning mostly men is representative of the national vote?

I know you need something to cling on to but honestly I don't think this poll is it.