How about limiting families to 3 children, or is this as bad as euthanasia in your eyes? Agree this is draconian, but World population in 1800 - 1 billion. World population today - 7 billion and going upwards.
Now you're just making things up, which is childish, Stan. Of course I believe in climate change, and marine pollution too. These are long term projects that won't be solved overnight
I specifically ruled you out of the climate change deniers corps Goldie, don’t know what you are on about. They won’t be solved overnight, but we could do with some more effective international decision making to at least make a start. National self interest will stop this happening. One of the many reasons nations hold us back. The infallible, 100% guaranteed to work way to reduce, and eventually reverse population growth is improved health care and life expectancy, reduced poverty, improved education and above all the economic and social empowerment of women. People benefitting from these things tend to use more contraception and be less religious. If you want people’s behaviours to change you have to make it worth their while.
You're right, Stan. Apologies. I thought you were accusing me of being Trump. And I agree with your second para. Access to contraception would seem to be the forerunner of all the other benefits. Most young women, faced with a husband demanding his conjugal rights, and the prospect of 11 children will surely opt to take a pill etc to plan her family. It wasn't so long ago that women here faced the same challenge. My great grandfather was one of 11, and taken out of school at 14
People have a lot of kids because they have, subliminally at least, an economic value in poor societies. This didn’t lead to rapid population growth when infant mortality was incredibly high, but it does now that, even in very poor countries, life expectancy has grown and infant mortality collapsed (a good thing). People will use contraception when they have no economic incentive to have lots of kids. On a totally different subject, I didn’t realise that this is the first time ever in the UK that members of a political party will, in choosing their leader, will appoint the Prime Minister. Never happened before.
But a coronation to implement a decision in an Islington restaurant eg Gordon Brown is less democratic still...
Not when they were in power, involving party members. Brown just took over from Blair, and Callaghan from Wilson, uncontested elections like May. no value judgements implied. They all get tested at a GE, usually sooner rather than later, because their mandate is obviously weaker than an GE election winner.
Yes, but he wasn’t elected party leader by Labour Party members, no one competed for the job. I’m not criticising the process of what’s going on now, just odd that it’s the first time ordinary party members have essentially got to appoint a PM. Just as valid as MPs doing it, if not more so, and as I said most who inherit the job tend to have a GE in a couple of years at most. I think we will have one this year.
Yes, that will depend on whether certain Remain Tory MP's vote against Boris in Labour's vote of no confidence to stop a no deal, but thereby risk their own jobs and the possibility of Corbyn govt (even if that latter looks unlikely on current polls)
Yes, and this is what Johnson said at the time.... “It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me. It’s Gordon Brown’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people. It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.” “They voted for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair to serve as their leader. They were at no stage invited to vote on whether Gordon Brown should be PM… They voted for Tony, and yet they now get Gordon, and a transition about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero. It is a scandal. Why are we all conniving in this stitch-up? This is nothing less than a palace coup… with North Korean servility, the Labour Party has handed power over to the brooding Scottish power-maniac.” “The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people. No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister…” There will have to be a GE this year.
It takes some mental contortions to try and justify in your head a minority government propped up by some religious ultras led by a bloke who will willingly make you poorer having been elected by 0.2% of the population, with that 0.2% predominantly relatively old and relatively wealthy enough to not be so adversely affected by his future ‘policies’.
September Election according to the Sunday Times, which really is racking up the anti Corbyn campaign, all on its news rather than opinion pages. They are mobilising. Can’t see anything other than another hung parliament myself. Without Corbyn Labour might have a chance of forming a government with the Libs, Greens and SNP, but not with him. Don’t know who apart from the DUP would buddy up with the Tories.
