In the news

I suppose that I'd be inclined to agree with the majority of that...

It seems to me that there are too many people on the planet already, and that although the rate of growth is declining, the idea that global populations might top out at 10-11 billion genuinely makes me shudder. Based on current projections, the contribution of the UK to the global trends is comparatively small, however population density in the UK is already boggling and can be expected to increase by 20% before it tops out.

Against that background, my initial reaction is to feel sympathetic to policies that hint at limiting this growth.

I guess the critical questions therefore are:
Will the policy be effective at delivering a desired outcome?
Will it deliver the desired outcome in a fair and equitable way?
What are the likely unintended consequences of the policy and are they acceptable?

In this case, and on deeper reflection, the answer to the first two questions is probably not. The existence (or lack thereof) of child benefit probably plays zero part in affecting a couple's decision to have another child, and even if it did, limiting child benefit to the first two children would have a disproportionate impact on poorer families for whom each additional child would represent a proportionally greater drain on the family's finances.

In fact, despite it's outward appearance, I suppose I'm not actually convinced that this policy was ever intended to have anything to do with wider issues of population. Certainly Osbourne didn't seem to couch it in those terms. As mentioned I suspect this was far more about finding budget savings wherever possible and the consequences be damned.

The policy has nothing to do with encouraging smaller families.

Its a policy to say "look at us, we are addressing the 'issue' that we worked so hard to make sure you wanted us to address in the first place"

Your last sentence is the catch. They just don't give two fucks, they're alright and can't see past the end of their booger sugar encrusted noses.

The living wage is currently £9.15. How is introducing a wage of £9.00 by 2020 'implementing a living wage' Gideon? You twat.

Indeed, maybe I should edit my last sentence to say:

"...I suspect this was far more about finding budget savings wherever possible and at the expense of those people who were least likely to vote for us anyway... the consequences be damned."

#sadface.

Not everyone lives in London.

Did i also read that road tax will be £140 for every new car, whether it's a 0 CO2 emitting little thing or a giant engined 4x4 peasant crusher? Another tax break for the rich and likely increase for the poor. Such utter, utter cunts.

Only everyone who matters. But even then, he's introducing it at £7.20, and the outside Ldn living wage is £7.85.

Yup, it'll likely benefit some people still, not me who had convinced my boss to tie my pay to the living wage, that's actually a pay decrease. I'm sure there will still be a difference between the tories new "living wage" and the independently figured out current living wage.

i hope alcohol tax goes towards building better pubs. the one at the end of my street is a fucking dog turd of a place.

I'd be doing more than my fair share for the local establishments.

RE WTC for just 2 kids... 2.1 kids is replacement rate and this affects families only with kids born after 2017. The UK population keeps growing, so in theory we have enough people. We don't need to "sponsor" families over 2 kids. Right?

That makes an assumption people will go "ah, well 2 is enough" in all cases for everyone. Not only that, circumstances can change. You have 4, parents lose health or whatever, need WTC now but...you only get it for 2.

So there's a risk of the kids suffering over parents circumstances. If your goal is lowering costs/population growth it may not work, or have a shitload of social/financial costs via other mechanisms.

I am making a rather utilitarian argument here BTW...but sure it's all about saving money says the government, well show us your sums then. You may very well merely shift cost. Ow wait, politicians and doing sums...

talking of pints...

not sure how legit this is but supposedly shows real time cyber attacks taking place

http://map.norsecorp.com/

I'd say its legit. (I know a bit about this cos I happen to work in that field, on n00b level)

Pretty cool visualization :D

EDIT: More here a good security blog btw: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/01/whos-attacking-whom-realtime-attack-trackers/

i'm fucking home now.

site visit tomorrow?

You plum.

A have a real site visit in the afternoon that I could deflect for a pint watching the cricket. What time are you thinking?

i can only clock off around 5.15 earliest. @ does flexi-hours.

Paris to let cyclists skip red lights...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33446899

Only where it's safe. Some crap reporting on that.

issues of population

The population size of developed countries isn't the problem imo. It's the level of resource consumption and more importantly the aspirations of developing countries to reach that same level of consumption.

But obviously no one here wants to adjust their life style and no one is going to tell the developing world that they can't have a better one.

not entirely related to your question but worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

the cyber wars taking place today are quite incredible
numerous high profile us websites down wsj / scotttrade / at&t telephone lines
/ ny stock exchange / united airline planes

china trying to take the heat of their trillion dollar stock losses over the last few days ?

walkenger map of london

@ts
@>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
@ joe

http://www.aryjoecreatives.com/walklondon

#nobrixton?

Since when was cycling so dangerous that other causes of death are compared to it to highlight how dangerous they are. Stay out of the water as it's dangerous and killed more people last year than cycling did. No comment that this is only a tiny amount compared to driving or inactivity related illness.

Fuck me, how did I survive the dun run?
I'm staying away from the wild swimming rides, likely to invalidate my life insurance.