To like Keir Starmer?

I do find that Only Fools and Horses Starmer/Sunak deepfake entertaining though. It's just so silly.

I don't think it's about he is boring or exciting.

It was the infighting that caused the biggest issue. You could say Sunak was boring but the constant infighting in the Tories made it all look chaotic, exciting whatever word you want to use.

The difference is now we don't have a party who is fighting amongst themselves hence it.migjt appear thay kier is boring but it isn't about him being boring. His party is behind him so we dont see those headlines anymore thats the big difference

I find it strange when people refer to him as 'boring.' Why would we need a PM that is entertaining?

Why do you want your leaders to be exciting? It worked out well before, didn’t it? You aren’t supposed to like or dislike their personality. It’s irrelevant.

It depends what issue you're talking about.

If you're talking about the impact of human activity on the planet in terms of climate change, pollution, over farming and fishing, destruction of natural habitats etc (as David Attenborough is) then overpopulation is a problem.

If you're talking about the challenges of creating a sustainable society with enough working age people to support an increasingly aged population, then falling birth rates are a problem.

The former is a global problem and the latter is largely a first world problem. The countries most concerned about a falling birth rate tend to be developed countries where most people aspire to a high standard of living (education, a home with enough bedrooms for each child, holidays, car ownership etc) and where contraception and abortions are easily accessible. In these countries women can choose to only have one or two children, or none at all, so the birth rate is falling. Developing countries tend to have a much higher birth rate, partly because of the lack of availability of contraception and abortions, and partly because people in those countries don't have the same expectations in terms of a high standard of living. People in Somalia aren't deciding not to have a third child based on things like the price of holidays if you need to get an extra hotel room, or having to upgrade to a car which can take three ISOFIX car seats in the back. What this inevitably leads to is changes in migration patterns, as wealthy countries will need immigrants to plug the gap in their working age population and working age people from developing countries will emigrate (as they always have done) in search of a better life elsewhere. It would be less of an issue if all countries managed to keep their birth rate at the proper replacement rate, rather than some countries having a fast increasing birth rate and others having a declining birth rate, but I don't see any realistic way to manage that in reality.

I don’t vote for him, but he is so bland and boring there’s literally nothing to like or dislike 😂

YADNBU. I totally agree, he's a sensible grown up who is a bit dull but very smart. Complete opposite to the last lot.

In 2018 Sir David Attenborough spoke out about our unsustainable population growth (world growth) and the urgent need to address it.

Plus it’s not great for consumption rates, resources and environmental factors

I'm not sure that having more and more children is the answer. What happens when those children are pensioners, do you just encourage the younger adults to have more children? It would be never ending because with advances in medicine people will just carry on living longer.

Where will the houses be built to accommodate the growing population, the food needed, hospitals, schools etc, not to mention the damage to wildlife habitats.

Or maybe we need to syaty habit seriously conversations about when people should choose if continuing to exist vs quality of life in old age. Who would say they want to still be alive if it meant they were literally home bound in pain, never leave their home for years unless it's trip to hospital. I know I don't but there is no suitable alternative.

Or maybe there is a growing number of people who just don't isn't children for.lotd of reasons that I've been hearing like men are just shit won't do their fair share why saddle myself with that type of life, what type of world are we bringing children into what with climate change, struggles of living cos your taxed endlessly.to pay for other people, the cost of having kids, or just don't want them.

There lots more but those are the ones I keep hearing. Cost isn't the single important factor anymore it's mostly the quality of men tbh. As women we now have better opportunities to earn money, we can live great lives independently why would u compromise it to end up with someone who just adds.stress to your life. These are the conversations I hear more now and I don't blame them one bit for thinking that way

https://www.ft.com/content/f0d2a5a7-e5ef-4044-8380-ff690b609a5a

My point is you cannot talk about immigration and Farage without addressing the elephant in the room, which is low fertility rates. And I think we have to talk about it very urgently and as a feminist issue because the right wingers will try and control women’s bodies and restrict the rights of women.

So I think all women should be encouraged to have children, especially highly educated and successful women.

How is it that we accept that richer higher earning men have more children than others, but richer higher earning women do not? As the research shows educational attainment of a child is directly linked to the level of education of the mother. We need more equal policies at work for women, but we also really need taxation incentives for high flying women. What we have at the moment is the opposite.

And of course all children living in poverty should be fully supported by the state. But I do not think the state should incentivise those children to be born by promising benefits, free housing etc. None of that is stable enough for those children. It is not fair on them and their life chances and what may look like an easy fix is not. That is why they are right to not lift the 2 child benefit cap, but they are right to introduce more FSM, breakfast clubs - anything to help those children rise above what they were born into.

@Emmanuelll - why would do that be a two tier society? At the moment, they cut all child related stuff for higher earners. Both child benefit, childcare etc etc, and personal allowance. When those are the people who can probably give a child the best start in life.
So we educate women to a high level, then let them work, pay a lot of tax and tell them that it is not financially worthwhile to have kids? It makes zero sense for society as a whole to do that.

In the 60s in France they essentially incentivised loads of poor people to have multiple children by paying increasing amounts per child. That led to social problems and is well documented.
We need to start seeing this from the point of view of the child being born. Who is going to be given the best life chances and in which families, and those people should be incentivised to have kids. What we are doing right now is the exact opposite.

We also need better laws to make sure that men who father children and leave cannot get out of their financial obligations, full stop. Time and time again women are left behind to pick up the pieces.

I have a suggestion - we know and need richer people to ideally aim for 3 children. They have some money and can do a lot of the heavy lifting at home. That is exactly what we have been discussing - healthy pregnancy, early years education, talking to kids etc up to age 5 is really important and then supporting them educationally throughout primary, and ideally some support, especially mentoring/mental health into the teenage years.

So the obvious answer is not “benefits” but incentivise richer people to get tax cuts progressively, depending on how many children they have. So child 3 gets even more of a tax cut.

You want kids you pay for them, I'm sorry!

Why should the taxpayer?