Best Of

A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .

Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.

Very funny ! Reform !

If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !

A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.

MAGA voters really are on another planet !

Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .

The telling women what to do with their bodies has already entered Reform’s offering: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/13/reform-matt-goodwin-fertility-comments-outcry-handmaids-tale

He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically

I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.

Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.

Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.

One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.

And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.

So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?

I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income.
Breeding has become almost unaffordable.

Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.

This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:

"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”

These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.

Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.

I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.

To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.

It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/most-british-women-wait-until-32-to-have-first-child/

Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.

The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.

So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?

100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.

It's true that a major reversal of female emancipation would probably increase the birth rate but I don't think this should be aspired to.

Personally, I would work on things that make being a mother and a parent easier: you know, like decent childcare, affordable housing, and the like.

I have a great idea and we could call it "Surestart".

Well well Chagos gets even worse ...

"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender
One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"

"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.

Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.

A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.

The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."

etc, more here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/61124e980439f9c7

IT'S THE TELEGRAPH!

So?

There is plenty of material that justifies criticism of Starmer's tenure as Prime Minister, but the Telegraph in particular create false or misleading narratives to kick him further.

The Chagos arrangement is a case in point. It would seem to me that those who are triggered by Starmer are triggered by Chagos. These players also create a narrative that Starmer has had a chaotic war which they initially compared to Farage and Badenoch's righteous resolution to support Trump and Netanyahu at all costs. I remember a post on here claiming Starmer was "weak, weak, weak" yet when their narrative faltered they went after Starmer by crusing his approval of US defensive action in the Gulf. So to the Telegraph and PB's Telegraph groupies, Starmer was wrong to decline Trump's request to launch the illegal Iran War from Chagos yet now he is wrong to let the USAF defend the Gulf states from Fairford.

Starmer is a poor Prime Minister in lots of ways, so why do the Telegraph etc. have to make up shite?

I see that the far-left takeover of the (no longer) Green Party means that they are now infested with antisemites.

Since the pitiful 'Greens are anti NATO' tactic has proved entirely fruitless, obviously the media is now going full on Maoist bicycle on the road to Auschwitz. Possibly won't work as well as it did with Jezza because as far as I know the Greens don't have an active section of the party plotting to bring down Zack.

The sense of entitlement from Labour is extreme.

The exodus to the Greens is not being driven by anti-semitism, it is being driven by the Reform-adjacent policies of the Labour Party.

Is Starmer proposing withdrawal from the ECHR? Deportation of those with settled residence status? Banning the Burka? Banning Muslim prayers in public? Ending the 2 child benefit cap only for those in work? Abolishing inheritance tax? Bringing back more grammar schools via free schools? Increasing oil production? Scrapping EDI schemes? Scrapping net zero? Scrapping completely the family farm and family business tax not just raising the threshold for it? Not that I have noticed yet Farage has proposed all of those policies

And that is why you are a de facto Faragist hiding behind a pro Cleverly agenda

What utter rubbish, Reform lead the polls, if I was really a Faragist I would already have defected to Reform! Cleverly also offers a more moderate One Nation style agenda than Kemi's more Farage adjacent policies anyway

Cleverly is a donkey with no charisma

As I am not a Tory I would be delighted if Kemi was replaced, especially by Cleverly, as it will reduce the number of seats they will win.

Kemi is currently projected to win about 50 to 70 seats, tactical anti Reform votes could hold more Tory seats

I see that the far-left takeover of the (no longer) Green Party means that they are now infested with antisemites.

Since the pitiful 'Greens are anti NATO' tactic has proved entirely fruitless, obviously the media is now going full on Maoist bicycle on the road to Auschwitz. Possibly won't work as well as it did with Jezza because as far as I know the Greens don't have an active section of the party plotting to bring down Zack.

The sense of entitlement from Labour is extreme.

The exodus to the Greens is not being driven by anti-semitism, it is being driven by the Reform-adjacent policies of the Labour Party.

Is Starmer proposing withdrawal from the ECHR? Deportation of those with settled residence status? Banning the Burka? Banning Muslim prayers in public? Ending the 2 child benefit cap only for those in work? Abolishing inheritance tax? Bringing back more grammar schools via free schools? Increasing oil production? Scrapping EDI schemes? Scrapping net zero? Scrapping completely the family farm and family business tax not just raising the threshold for it? Not that I have noticed yet Farage has proposed all of those policies

And that is why you are a de facto Faragist hiding behind a pro Cleverly agenda

What utter rubbish, Reform lead the polls, if I was really a Faragist I would already have defected to Reform! Cleverly also offers a more moderate One Nation style agenda than Kemi's more Farage adjacent policies anyway

Cleverly is a donkey with no charisma

As I am not a Tory I would be delighted if Kemi was replaced, especially by Cleverly, as it will reduce the number of seats they will win.

Kemi is currently projected to win about 50 to 70 seats, tactical anti Reform votes could hold more Tory seats

Am I the only person on the left who would rather see a ReFukker elected than a Tory?

Short term pain for long term gain.

I’d sign up to that. Tory and Labour are complicit in the two-party stitch up that has paralysed our politics for two generations and ensured that every GE vote I have ever cast has been directed straight to the WPB. I’d vote for any party on offer as an alternative to the Tories, and any party other than the Tories on offer as an alternative to Labour.

Your thank you letter from PM Farage will be in the post. Farage would definitely beat Polanski especially if left of centre voters even vote Reform over the Tories and Labour. Starmer might still beat Farage, as might Streeting and a returned Burnham definitely beats Farage

Luckily my principled position, which I would hold regardless of where I lived, would direct me to vote Green before considering Reform, in my own current constituency. Thus I won’t ever be held responsible for future PM Farage. Unlike this site’s numpty in residence Leon, who will likely get it wrong for the fourth time in a row.

A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .

Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.

Very funny ! Reform !

If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !

A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.

MAGA voters really are on another planet !

Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .

The telling women what to do with their bodies has already entered Reform’s offering: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/13/reform-matt-goodwin-fertility-comments-outcry-handmaids-tale

He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically

I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.

Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.

Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.

One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.

And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.

So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?

I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income.
Breeding has become almost unaffordable.

Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.

This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:

"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”

These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.

Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.

I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.

To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.

It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/most-british-women-wait-until-32-to-have-first-child/

Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.

The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.

So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?

100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.

That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.

Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?

A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .

Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.

Very funny ! Reform !

If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !

A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.

MAGA voters really are on another planet !

Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .

The telling women what to do with their bodies has already entered Reform’s offering: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/13/reform-matt-goodwin-fertility-comments-outcry-handmaids-tale

He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically

I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.

Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.

Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.

One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.

And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.

So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?

I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income.
Breeding has become almost unaffordable.

Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.

This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:

"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”

These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.

Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.

I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.

To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.

It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/most-british-women-wait-until-32-to-have-first-child/

Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.

The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.

So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?

100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.

It's true that a major reversal of female emancipation would probably increase the birth rate but I don't think this should be aspired to.

Personally, I would work on things that make being a mother and a parent easier: you know, like decent childcare, affordable housing, and the like.