If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
I am very glad to see the government realise the importance of pay in retention of skilled personnel.
I am sure that a similar approach to the renewed talks with the BMA will be welcomed by the Tory faithful.
That is funded by higher taxes, not the private sector as bankers bonuses now are (except for private doctors salaries)
Same issue of staff retention...
Well we could also have a bigger private health sector like Australia with more private health insurance and higher doctors salaries
Basically, the problem is not having enough babies and everyone living longer - it makes both the tax base and services demands harder and harder to reconcile every year.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than people have to pay in more and expect less.
Maybe AI could be a massive gamechanger but that could go so many different ways.
essentially if there's more people living longer and fewer people working there's less money to spend on health. it's going to get worse for a lot of countries. for example the uk has a fertility rate of 1.56 babies per woman. this results in only 78 children or 60 grandchildren from every 100 people.
it's worse for China whose fertility rate is 1.16 which results in 58 children per 100 people and 33 grandchildren worst of all is South Korea whose fertility rate is 0.88 resulting in 44 children per 100 people and only 19 grandchildren.
long term that decline in working aged people has historically (in the UK) been made up of immigrants. (the UK's fertility rate was last above 2 in the 1970's)
Given that pressure on housing and pressure for both parents to work in order to pay for housing is one of the key factors in the lower numbers of kids people have, if we didn't keep filling in the gaps with immigration, wouldn't this be somewhat self correcting? At 1.56, pressure on housing (and lots of other infrastructure - e.g. schools) would collapse fairly quickly.
This would both free up resources (e.g. fewer builders and primary teachers needed) which would end up directed at care for the elderly, but also make having kids much cheaper (if housing cost 50% of what it does now, most families could live comfortably on one income, rather than requiring two) so people are more likely to start have families earlier, which should start to shift the replacement rate up?
The other major change is plenty of young people actively don't want a life partner, they are content living alone and hooking up with each other for bedroom activities as and when desired. They see no reason to indulge in the compromises that living jointly entails
If that's true (and I'm not sure that's entirely true, at least based on my observations of friends, co-workers, etc), that's a lot of people setting themselves up for a remarkably miserable existence, particularly as they get older.
I got married last year. Leaving the bedroom sports out of it, I've found it's got so many other advantages which essentially come from pooling resources. I get home after a hard day in a physical job, and there is a decent healthy meal waiting for me. She has an evening feeling rough and the kitchen magically clears itself up and puts all the dirty stuff in the dishwasher. A car fails it's MOT, and because we've two cars, and two drivers, all the usual dramas around getting it dropped off at a garage and getting to work evaporate. She never has to worry about wood for the logburner, it just appears in the living room every night. Meanwhile there's always milk in the fridge without me having bought any for months.
And that's before considering the financials which mean that we are now paying for one house, one electric bill, one lot of heating etc. so we've massively better off than we used to be. It's also before considering what happens when we age - I don't know if I'll have to care for her, or she will be looking after me, or perhaps a bit of both, but more likely, than not, one of us will have to support the other through the hard times which come from age and infirmity.
If people want to all live insular lives on their own, they can, but they need to accept that with that comes tougher and poorer lives too. Particularly when they're old - no spouse, no children - do would really want to only have the state looking out for you then?
Several friends who didn't get married, lived the perpetual holiday life style etc, are now talking about forming a group living thing for old age - no kids to come and see them, so someone to make sure that the cats don't eat the corpse. It sounds a bit grim, to be honest.
Alternative way to look at it relationships are great while they last. When they end however can often leave you in a position where you end up struggling because you built a life, had a house and now suddenly in your 40's or 50's find your self having to sell up and can no longer afford a home and have to rent while your partner gets 50% of any profit. It is what happened to me for example in the 90's I could have bought the house I lived in on my own. Payed about 85% of the mortgage and bills as I earned more. We split up sold the house for a profit. She got half as her name was on the deed.
However by that time house prices were exploding could no longer afford a one bedroom flat even with the deposit. So I was screwed that way. I don't blame her in the least for this. We came to an end and we split. She walked away with more than she had actually ever earned in the 8 years we were together. I walked away with the same amount but it wasn't enough that I could afford to buy anymore so been renting ever since and watching that money dribble away due to my paycheck not matching my outgoings.
She was better off than if we had not got together, I was in a worse position than if we hadn't as already had a mortgage when we got together. Tell me again how having a partner helped me. It left me living in a pokey rental. (This by the way is not a rant about women, merely pointing out that being with a partner has its downsides if you split up)
It comes back to the enormous percentage of income we spend on housing. Quite a few people are in the situation that they could never again buy the home they live in.
Oh I agree and my problem was we split up just before the housing boom. We sold a four bedroom house.....a year later what we sold it for was less than the price of a 2 bedroom flat or so it seemed. I was certainly viewing them where they were the same price as we sold for and that was significantly more than we bought it for in the first place.
My sisters-in-law are a good example - scrambling around to find vaguely passable specimens. I kept telling them to join a sports club or something - the dating apps kept producing failure.
The city of London is one of our key industries and one of the few that is internationally competitive. The restriction on bonuses is a silly idea introduced by the EU at the insistence of those who don’t have such an industry. The really surprising thing is that the government has taken so little to abolish a measure that they always opposed.
Of course it won’t win any votes but if it enhances London as a place for financial services it will help improve our tax base.
We will get a little bit of extra tax each year sure. But lets not pretend it doesn't also increase our potential liabilities in a future bank bailout too.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Capping bankers' bonuses isn't going to make shoe factories reopen in Northampton.
It'll just boost remuneration in an already bloated and over-remunerated sector.
Do you mean that it will boost tax receipts to the Treasury from the top 1%?
Is that necessarily a good thing though?
Partly because of the increased decoupling of where tax comes from and who votes.
But mostly because it doesn't seem like a reliably stable source of tax. Wasn't the size of the City one of the reasons the 2008 crash hit UK finances so hard?
And we can be sure that there will be will be another crash.
Good question from earlier.
There’s a fine line for the Chancellor to draw, between making hay while the sun shines, and fixing the roof in the summer; and strangling the country’s most successful industry, which happens to be highly mobile.
There’s little correlation between individual pay and the more systemic issues, and I think that the regulatory changes since 2010 mean that the BoE is now much less on the hook than previously.
More banks based in London/UK (could help the Edinburgh industry) is a universally good thing - people paying rent, buildings full, Pret a Manger baguettes being purchased, more tax being paid.
I sometimes think about getting a life partner again. It is certainly advantageous in multiple ways - as lucidly outlined by @theProle
However I just can’t. Not yet. 99.9% of people are so boring. I can’t talk to them for more than 2 hours (and that’s with alcohol)
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
If you find someone you really like and love it seems natural. But we’re all different - maybe it’s just not for you.
As we get older Mrs P and I enjoy visiting new places together. New to us anyway, if not exotic to seasoned travel writers.
Olso yesterday including Munch’s Scream (x3). The Hague tomorrow for the Goldfinch at the Mauritshuis.
Sadly however its getting rarer the average length of a relationship is dropping. Once it was you married and most lasted a lifetime. Now not so much. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing that people are more able to get out of relationships that aren't good for them.
However it is also true that a relationship breaking up also tends to mean one or both are financially worse off than they would have been without entering a relationship in the first place. This is why a lot of people like myself no longer want a relationship but prefer to have fwb's.....we can plan and no longer have our lives turned upside down due to someone elses decision
This isn’t a proper poll, they’re calling it a survey when pressed and are getting abused for the conclusions they’re reaching about voting intention, but does suggest there might be appetite for a party that put Muslims first. I think there will surely be one 10-15 years from now and it will win several seats in inner cities
The city of London is one of our key industries and one of the few that is internationally competitive. The restriction on bonuses is a silly idea introduced by the EU at the insistence of those who don’t have such an industry. The really surprising thing is that the government has taken so little to abolish a measure that they always opposed.
Of course it won’t win any votes but if it enhances London as a place for financial services it will help improve our tax base.
We will get a little bit of extra tax each year sure. But lets not pretend it doesn't also increase our potential liabilities in a future bank bailout too.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Capping bankers' bonuses isn't going to make shoe factories reopen in Northampton.
It'll just boost remuneration in an already bloated and over-remunerated sector.
Do you mean that it will boost tax receipts to the Treasury from the top 1%?
Is that necessarily a good thing though?
Partly because of the increased decoupling of where tax comes from and who votes.
But mostly because it doesn't seem like a reliably stable source of tax. Wasn't the size of the City one of the reasons the 2008 crash hit UK finances so hard?
And we can be sure that there will be will be another crash.
Good question from earlier.
There’s a fine line for the Chancellor to draw, between making hay while the sun shines, and fixing the roof in the summer; and strangling the country’s most successful industry, which happens to be highly mobile.
There’s little correlation between individual pay and the more systemic issues, and I think that the regulatory changes since 2010 mean that the BoE is now much less on the hook than previously.
More banks based in London/UK (could help the Edinburgh industry) is a universally good thing - people paying rent, buildings full, Pret a Manger baguettes being purchased, more tax being paid.
Having recently attended a talk by Tom Holland on his new book, Pax, about, er, Pax or the Pax Romana I am quite well up on 2nd century AD folk in Britain.
Unaccountably while enumerating the various emperors and discussing Hadrian he completely neglected to tell us whether they were "white" or "black" thinking, preposterously, that "Caesar" would suffice.
Bloody good multitasking by Tom Holland, doing that and being a teenage superhero from Queens as well. Did he bring Zendaya?
Zendaya would have brought the average age of the audience down by some degree.
Although there were some earnest, informed question-asking what must have been students there so it was a fairly mixed bunch.
"Tom Holland" is also the name of an English actor who plays the superhero "Spiderman" in a series of movies. You can find out about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Holland
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
All marriages end behind a veil of tears; one way or another. But there is still nothing finer to be found among the cold and bitter ashes of existence.
You definitely could talk to somebody for more than two hours so don't neg yourself. You sometimes bore on for days on end about the same old shit on here.
The city of London is one of our key industries and one of the few that is internationally competitive. The restriction on bonuses is a silly idea introduced by the EU at the insistence of those who don’t have such an industry. The really surprising thing is that the government has taken so little to abolish a measure that they always opposed.
Of course it won’t win any votes but if it enhances London as a place for financial services it will help improve our tax base.
We will get a little bit of extra tax each year sure. But lets not pretend it doesn't also increase our potential liabilities in a future bank bailout too.
One of the scenarios where the governance and the politics ought to be considered separately.
From a governance point of view, there's tax revenues that come from the City, the UK needs them and this move might unlock some more. (Whether it's in the UK's medium term interests to court the sort of financial behaviours that bonus culture rewards, I dunno. Suburban science master and all that. But they do seem a bit unreliable. Famine and feast and all that.)
From a politics point of view, it's an insane thing to do- see the polling in the header. And given that, as far as the electorate are concerned, Rishi is a rich banker (I know there are subspecies there, but most voters have more sense than to dive into those), he's exactly the wrong PM to be doing this.
Has 'rebalancing away from the City' gone into the 'too hard' basket?
Capping bankers' bonuses isn't going to make shoe factories reopen in Northampton.
It'll just boost remuneration in an already bloated and over-remunerated sector.
Do you mean that it will boost tax receipts to the Treasury from the top 1%?
Is that necessarily a good thing though?
Partly because of the increased decoupling of where tax comes from and who votes.
But mostly because it doesn't seem like a reliably stable source of tax. Wasn't the size of the City one of the reasons the 2008 crash hit UK finances so hard?
And we can be sure that there will be will be another crash.
Good question from earlier.
There’s a fine line for the Chancellor to draw, between making hay while the sun shines, and fixing the roof in the summer; and strangling the country’s most successful industry, which happens to be highly mobile.
There’s little correlation between individual pay and the more systemic issues, and I think that the regulatory changes since 2010 mean that the BoE is now much less on the hook than previously.
More banks based in London/UK (could help the Edinburgh industry) is a universally good thing - people paying rent, buildings full, Pret a Manger baguettes being purchased, more tax being paid.
This isn’t a proper poll, they’re calling it a survey when pressed and are getting abused for the conclusions they’re reaching about voting intention. but does suggest there might be appetite for a party that put Muslims first. I think there will surely be one 10-15 years from now and it will win several seats in inner cities
Having lived in Slough for 30+ years and it always had a high percentage of muslims, an unpopular view possibly but there are two types of muslim. Those that like living here and those that would prefer to recreate the homeland with all its proscriptions here. Currently they seem about split 50/50 we have to hope for an increase in the former rather than the latter
I sometimes think about getting a life partner again. It is certainly advantageous in multiple ways - as lucidly outlined by @theProle
However I just can’t. Not yet. 99.9% of people are so boring. I can’t talk to them for more than 2 hours (and that’s with alcohol)
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
They find someone who isn't you ?
Sudden childhood memory of being taken to visit an old family friend of my gran's. OFF had a solitary budgie. To keep it happy she hung a mirror in the cage with a perch in front. Budgie would perch and preen and chatter to itself all day long.
No, didn't think that would work.
In a weird way PB is my wife
I hope that doesn’t unsettle people. But it is true. You are always there if I need someone to talk to and my main friends are unavailable. You are there pretty much 24/7. You are also a source of advice and calming wisdom. We’ve been together for ages. You tolerate me and I tolerate you. Ok we don’t pool resources but that could be complicated
You’ll be happy to hear I find my sex elsewhere - so even in that respect it is exactly like a long marriage
I thought it was wrong that people said that Posh Spice couldn’t claim to have come from a working class background because her Dad drove a Rolls-Royce. Working class made good is still working class - if Prince Andrew ends up working in McDonalds and living in a council flat, he won’t be working class
I sometimes think about getting a life partner again. It is certainly advantageous in multiple ways - as lucidly outlined by @theProle
However I just can’t. Not yet. 99.9% of people are so boring. I can’t talk to them for more than 2 hours (and that’s with alcohol)
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
They find someone who isn't you ?
Sudden childhood memory of being taken to visit an old family friend of my gran's. OFF had a solitary budgie. To keep it happy she hung a mirror in the cage with a perch in front. Budgie would perch and preen and chatter to itself all day long.
No, didn't think that would work.
In a weird way PB is my wife
I hope that doesn’t unsettle people. But it is true. You are always there if I need someone to talk to and my main friends are unavailable. You are there pretty much 24/7. You are also a source of advice and calming wisdom. We’ve been together for ages. You tolerate me and I tolerate you. Ok we don’t pool resources but that could be complicated
You’ll be happy to hear I find my sex elsewhere - so even in that respect it is exactly like a long marriage
Considers being leons wife shudders and watches goatse to feel clean again
I sometimes think about getting a life partner again. It is certainly advantageous in multiple ways - as lucidly outlined by @theProle
However I just can’t. Not yet. 99.9% of people are so boring. I can’t talk to them for more than 2 hours (and that’s with alcohol)
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
If you find someone you really like and love it seems natural. But we’re all different - maybe it’s just not for you.
As we get older Mrs P and I enjoy visiting new places together. New to us anyway, if not exotic to seasoned travel writers.
Olso yesterday including Munch’s Scream (x3). The Hague tomorrow for the Goldfinch at the Mauritshuis.
Sadly however its getting rarer the average length of a relationship is dropping. Once it was you married and most lasted a lifetime. Now not so much. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing that people are more able to get out of relationships that aren't good for them.
However it is also true that a relationship breaking up also tends to mean one or both are financially worse off than they would have been without entering a relationship in the first place. This is why a lot of people like myself no longer want a relationship but prefer to have fwb's.....we can plan and no longer have our lives turned upside down due to someone elses decision
Everyone should have to spend a day in the divorce courts before getting married.
Caveat emptor. Watching very smart but somehow less wise relatives giving away huge chunks of their net worth to a series of buxom blondes certainly put me off the whole institution.
Not sure I would sign a contract handing over half my assets if someone got bored of me. Even I'm bored of me, half the time.
I sometimes think about getting a life partner again. It is certainly advantageous in multiple ways - as lucidly outlined by @theProle
However I just can’t. Not yet. 99.9% of people are so boring. I can’t talk to them for more than 2 hours (and that’s with alcohol)
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
I'm sure many people in a long term relationship would struggle to sustain a two hour conversation with their partner - I think I would. What is there to talk about for that long that one doesn't already know your partner's views on, and they yours? I've been thinking about my relationship with my wife today as it's our 21st wedding anniversary - and tomorrow we will have been "going out" for 29 years. I can't say what our secret is - I wouldn't hold us up as some kind of ideal couple, anyway. I think we both love and like and respect each other, we are both monogamous by nature, we have similar senses of humour and we find each other attractive - me with better reason! We argue a lot which I think is probably a good thing - no long, festering resentments. We've lived a fairly charmed life together, avoiding things like financial problems or bereavements that can put relationships under pressure. I suspect we both also don't like the idea of being alone. By contrast, you seem to be quite happy with your own company and not that monogamous by nature, so perhaps a long relationship isn't something you really want? I would certainly recommend it, I can't imagine life without my wife, but I would guess it's not for everyone.
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
All marriages end behind a veil of tears; one way or another. But there is still nothing finer to be found among the cold and bitter ashes of existence.
You definitely could talk to somebody for more than two hours so don't neg yourself. You sometimes bore on for days on end about the same old shit on here.
I did actually find someone that didn’t bore me - ever. She was also the funniest person I’ve ever met. So I married her
Trouble was she was 21 and I was 54, so the kids thing did for us
Everyone else - 2 hours. 3 hours for Gabrielle d’Annunzio
Probably not a good idea. As a rough rule of thumb you are homosocial but not homosexual: you prefer the company of men but are sexually attracted to women. This is why your relationships are short. A life partner would be a problem for both parties since you will both end up disappointing the other.
For sex I would advise you find a grown woman who is also homosocial but not homosexual, and you can meet up periodically. Not a prostitute I hasten to add, but somebody in your own age[1] and wealth class with the same problem. I assume there are online dating agencies that will suffice.
For care I would advise an executive assistant/housekeeper to fuss over you, as you can easily afford one. As long as you don't confuse the two functions you should be alright.
[1] Your should have worked out by now that relationships with younger women do not work for you.
I sometimes think about getting a life partner again. It is certainly advantageous in multiple ways - as lucidly outlined by @theProle
However I just can’t. Not yet. 99.9% of people are so boring. I can’t talk to them for more than 2 hours (and that’s with alcohol)
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
If you find someone you really like and love it seems natural. But we’re all different - maybe it’s just not for you.
As we get older Mrs P and I enjoy visiting new places together. New to us anyway, if not exotic to seasoned travel writers.
Olso yesterday including Munch’s Scream (x3). The Hague tomorrow for the Goldfinch at the Mauritshuis.
Sadly however its getting rarer the average length of a relationship is dropping. Once it was you married and most lasted a lifetime. Now not so much. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing that people are more able to get out of relationships that aren't good for them.
However it is also true that a relationship breaking up also tends to mean one or both are financially worse off than they would have been without entering a relationship in the first place. This is why a lot of people like myself no longer want a relationship but prefer to have fwb's.....we can plan and no longer have our lives turned upside down due to someone elses decision
Everyone should have to spend a day in the divorce courts before getting married.
Caveat emptor. Watching very smart but somehow less wise relatives giving away huge chunks of their net worth to a series of buxom blondes certainly put me off the whole institution.
Not sure I would sign a contract handing over half my assets if someone got bored of me. Even I'm bored of me, half the time.
Solution: marry someone with more assets than you!
I sometimes think about getting a life partner again. It is certainly advantageous in multiple ways - as lucidly outlined by @theProle
However I just can’t. Not yet. 99.9% of people are so boring. I can’t talk to them for more than 2 hours (and that’s with alcohol)
How do people spend entire lives with one other person??
If you find someone you really like and love it seems natural. But we’re all different - maybe it’s just not for you.
As we get older Mrs P and I enjoy visiting new places together. New to us anyway, if not exotic to seasoned travel writers.
Olso yesterday including Munch’s Scream (x3). The Hague tomorrow for the Goldfinch at the Mauritshuis.
Sadly however its getting rarer the average length of a relationship is dropping. Once it was you married and most lasted a lifetime. Now not so much. I don't see it necessarily as a bad thing that people are more able to get out of relationships that aren't good for them.
However it is also true that a relationship breaking up also tends to mean one or both are financially worse off than they would have been without entering a relationship in the first place. This is why a lot of people like myself no longer want a relationship but prefer to have fwb's.....we can plan and no longer have our lives turned upside down due to someone elses decision
Everyone should have to spend a day in the divorce courts before getting married.
Caveat emptor. Watching very smart but somehow less wise relatives giving away huge chunks of their net worth to a series of buxom blondes certainly put me off the whole institution.
Not sure I would sign a contract handing over half my assets if someone got bored of me. Even I'm bored of me, half the time.
You don't even need to get married for that. Back then I made 5 times more than her. Because her name was on the deed it was a default 50/50 split. I don't blame her in the least as it was agreed when I put her name on the deed. What irks me was largely not me that provoked the split. It was largely she wanted to move away and I couldn't without losing my job
Probably not a good idea. As a rough rule of thumb you are homosocial but not homosexual: you prefer the company of men but are sexually attracted to women. This is why your relationships are short. A life partner would be a problem for both parties since you will both end up disappointing the other.
For sex I would advise you find a grown woman who is also homosocial but not homosexual, and you can meet up periodically. Not a prostitute I hasten to add, but somebody in your own age[1] and wealth class with the same problem. I assume there are online dating agencies that will suffice.
For care I would advise an executive assistant/housekeeper to fuss over you, as you can easily afford one. As long as you don't confuse the two functions you should be alright.
[1] Your should have worked out by now that relationships with younger women do not work for you.
I dunno, maybe Leon needs a Jane Eyre to sort him out?
On North Carolina House districts: Some recent history from the 2006 version of The Almanac of American Politics:
"Republicans hold just seven of North Carolina's 13 House seats, because of a districting plan drawn by Democrats and because two moderate Democrats in in areas easily carried by Bush; in 2004 he carried 9 of the 13 current districts." (p. 1239)
(Some current Illinois districts are almost as entertaining.)
(For the record: Unlike some here, I oppose gerrymandering regardless of the party doing it. For most of my life -- I was born in 1943 -- that was mostly the Democratic Party.
In an ideal world, we would use an open-source program to draw districts. But I must add that such a program might now give an advantage to Republicans because Democrats are more concentrated in large cities.
Finally, an important technical point: Too many House districts no longer have two-party races, so simply adding up the votes gives a result that is slightly misleading. You could use presidential votes to make a "corrected" version of the House popular vote that would give a slightly more accurate measure of party strength, but I haven't seen anyone do that.)
Probably not a good idea. As a rough rule of thumb you are homosocial but not homosexual: you prefer the company of men but are sexually attracted to women. This is why your relationships are short. A life partner would be a problem for both parties since you will both end up disappointing the other.
For sex I would advise you find a grown woman who is also homosocial but not homosexual, and you can meet up periodically. Not a prostitute I hasten to add, but somebody in your own age[1] and wealth class with the same problem. I assume there are online dating agencies that will suffice.
For care I would advise an executive assistant/housekeeper to fuss over you, as you can easily afford one. As long as you don't confuse the two functions you should be alright.
[1] Your should have worked out by now that relationships with younger women do not work for you.
I dunno, maybe Leon needs a Jane Eyre to sort him out?
Probably not a good idea. As a rough rule of thumb you are homosocial but not homosexual: you prefer the company of men but are sexually attracted to women. This is why your relationships are short. A life partner would be a problem for both parties since you will both end up disappointing the other.
For sex I would advise you find a grown woman who is also homosocial but not homosexual, and you can meet up periodically. Not a prostitute I hasten to add, but somebody in your own age[1] and wealth class with the same problem. I assume there are online dating agencies that will suffice.
For care I would advise an executive assistant/housekeeper to fuss over you, as you can easily afford one. As long as you don't confuse the two functions you should be alright.
[1] Your should have worked out by now that relationships with younger women do not work for you.
I dunno, maybe Leon needs a Jane Eyre to sort him out?
Comments
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Millions-Women-are-Waiting-Meet/dp/0747585563
One thing’s for sure, the Tory stagnation has proved all too sustainable, sadly.
Here is how many times each #F1 team has had the plank checked on one of its cars post-race on Sunday from the 18 grands prix so far this year:
https://twitter.com/wearetherace/status/1717528247896850848
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67225980
However it is also true that a relationship breaking up also tends to mean one or both are financially worse off than they would have been without entering a relationship in the first place. This is why a lot of people like myself no longer want a relationship but prefer to have fwb's.....we can plan and no longer have our lives turned upside down due to someone elses decision
https://muslimcensus.co.uk/labour-losing-muslim-vote/
You definitely could talk to somebody for more than two hours so don't neg yourself. You sometimes bore on for days on end about the same old shit on here.
I hope that doesn’t unsettle people. But it is true. You are always there if I need someone to talk to and my main friends are unavailable. You are there pretty much 24/7. You are also a source of advice and calming wisdom. We’ve been together for ages. You tolerate me and I tolerate you. Ok we don’t pool resources but that could be complicated
You’ll be happy to hear I find my sex elsewhere - so even in that respect it is exactly like a long marriage
I thought it was wrong that people said that Posh Spice couldn’t claim to have come from a working class background because her Dad drove a Rolls-Royce. Working class made good is still working class - if Prince Andrew ends up working in McDonalds and living in a council flat, he won’t be working class
Sir Keir finds it difficult too
https://x.com/lbc/status/1712034050175832507?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Caveat emptor. Watching very smart but somehow less wise relatives giving away huge chunks of their net worth to a series of buxom blondes certainly put me off the whole institution.
Not sure I would sign a contract handing over half my assets if someone got bored of me. Even I'm bored of me, half the time.
I've been thinking about my relationship with my wife today as it's our 21st wedding anniversary - and tomorrow we will have been "going out" for 29 years. I can't say what our secret is - I wouldn't hold us up as some kind of ideal couple, anyway. I think we both love and like and respect each other, we are both monogamous by nature, we have similar senses of humour and we find each other attractive - me with better reason! We argue a lot which I think is probably a good thing - no long, festering resentments. We've lived a fairly charmed life together, avoiding things like financial problems or bereavements that can put relationships under pressure.
I suspect we both also don't like the idea of being alone. By contrast, you seem to be quite happy with your own company and not that monogamous by nature, so perhaps a long relationship isn't something you really want? I would certainly recommend it, I can't imagine life without my wife, but I would guess it's not for everyone.
Trouble was she was 21 and I was 54, so the kids thing did for us
Everyone else - 2 hours. 3 hours for Gabrielle d’Annunzio
Probably not a good idea. As a rough rule of thumb you are homosocial but not homosexual: you prefer the company of men but are sexually attracted to women. This is why your relationships are short. A life partner would be a problem for both parties since you will both end up disappointing the other.
For sex I would advise you find a grown woman who is also homosocial but not homosexual, and you can meet up periodically. Not a prostitute I hasten to add, but somebody in your own age[1] and wealth class with the same problem. I assume there are online dating agencies that will suffice.
For care I would advise an executive assistant/housekeeper to fuss over you, as you can easily afford one. As long as you don't confuse the two functions you should be alright.
[1] Your should have worked out by now that relationships with younger women do not work for you.
NEW THREAD
"Republicans hold just seven of North Carolina's 13 House seats, because of a districting plan drawn by Democrats and because two moderate Democrats in in areas easily carried by Bush; in 2004 he carried 9 of the 13 current districts." (p. 1239)
The Democratic 12th district was often used as an example of the weird shapes caused by gerrymandering. It looked something like a snake. There are maps of it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina's_12th_congressional_district
(Some current Illinois districts are almost as entertaining.)
(For the record: Unlike some here, I oppose gerrymandering regardless of the party doing it. For most of my life -- I was born in 1943 -- that was mostly the Democratic Party.
In an ideal world, we would use an open-source program to draw districts. But I must add that such a program might now give an advantage to Republicans because Democrats are more concentrated in large cities.
Finally, an important technical point: Too many House districts no longer have two-party races, so simply adding up the votes gives a result that is slightly misleading. You could use presidential votes to make a "corrected" version of the House popular vote that would give a slightly more accurate measure of party strength, but I haven't seen anyone do that.)