I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
I don't think a binary categorisation of developing/developed is particularly useful, but worth noting that GDP per capita (PPP) in China is between that of Brazil and Argentina, while for India it is lower than in Namibia.
On Defence I think there are three main challenges: money, people and technology.
The money one is the one that gets most attention and, despite the precarious nature of Britain's economy and public finances, it's probably the easiest to fix. Yes. Britain needs to spend a lot more money. And, yes, that means higher taxes and lower spending on other things.
People is a much tougher issue. Even with the reduced recruitment targets, recruitment is falling short. We might want to double the size of the Navy, but where do the sailors and engineering specialists come from to keep those ships at sea?
And then there's technology. It's always been hard to predict which weapons will be required for the next war and, for example, the importance of artillery in the Russo-Ukraine War has rather caught a lot of people unprepared. Development and procurement timescales are too long in Britain, and these need to be shortened to react to developments and ensure that large sums of money are not spent on obsolete equipment.
The other challenge is that Britain would have to accept that some mistakes will be made, and to adopt a mindset that is willing to move on from mistakes, rather than to be paralysed into inaction by the fear of making future mistakes. Let's make the best decisions we can now, accepting that we might have to revise them in the future.
There's a fourth point - our manufacturing base is not what it was. Look, for example, how many of the oil rich ME countries (and some Europeans) are now sourcing their kit from S Korea.
That needs to factor into our medium term procurement spending plans.
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Forcing one’s beliefs on the rest of the nation is exactly what politicians of all stripes do.
Not the most positive description of the democratic process
Democracy is the art of who gets the most votes and seats to enforce their beliefs for 5 years on the rest of the country in a manner which enough voters could tolerate to vote for
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
Yes, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England should make that point.
The reality is as plenty of people cannot afford to own property then they aren't starting families.
The Supreme Governor of the C of E was only allowed a service of prayer and blessing in a C of E chapel in 2005 coupled with his and Camilla's statement of repentance for past sins.Their actual marriage took place in Windsor Guildhall.
100 years ago most people had 2 or more children even if they largely rented their entire lives and never owned a property. More women working full time has also meant higher joint incomes to get mortgages which has in turn raised property prices
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Dura_Ace's issue is that he is consistently negative about everything. Which can be entertaining, but IMO does devalue everything he has to say. As an example, he never says anything positive about anyone, and is always deeply cynical about everyone. As he is a wise man, the exception is his good wife.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
I don't think a binary categorisation of developing/developed is particularly useful, but worth noting that GDP per capita (PPP) in China is between that of Brazil and Argentina, while for India it is lower than in Namibia.
I'll give you India but all that shows is that neither Brazil nor Argentina should be classed as developing either.
In real terms GDP per capita (PPP) China now has a higher GDP per capita than some countries that are and were classed as developed in 1990.
Since the benchmark of 1990 is used in all this for emissions etc I feel it's only fair that it is used for development too.
Instead of defining which countries are developed in a list that doesn't change, it should be benchmarked based on a threshold that met the term developed in 1990.
China, Brazil and Argentina have all surpassed that threshold.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
On Defence I think there are three main challenges: money, people and technology.
The money one is the one that gets most attention and, despite the precarious nature of Britain's economy and public finances, it's probably the easiest to fix. Yes. Britain needs to spend a lot more money. And, yes, that means higher taxes and lower spending on other things.
People is a much tougher issue. Even with the reduced recruitment targets, recruitment is falling short. We might want to double the size of the Navy, but where do the sailors and engineering specialists come from to keep those ships at sea?
And then there's technology. It's always been hard to predict which weapons will be required for the next war and, for example, the importance of artillery in the Russo-Ukraine War has rather caught a lot of people unprepared. Development and procurement timescales are too long in Britain, and these need to be shortened to react to developments and ensure that large sums of money are not spent on obsolete equipment.
The other challenge is that Britain would have to accept that some mistakes will be made, and to adopt a mindset that is willing to move on from mistakes, rather than to be paralysed into inaction by the fear of making future mistakes. Let's make the best decisions we can now, accepting that we might have to revise them in the future.
There's a fourth point - our manufacturing base is not what it was. Look, for example, how many of the oil rich ME countries (and some Europeans) are now sourcing their kit from S Korea.
That needs to factor into our medium term procurement spending plans.
The service economy is another legacy of Mrs.T .
The service economy is due to being a developed economy.
The UK is still by value one of the largest manufacturers on the planet (top 10).
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Both him and Carlotta seem to have disappeared
Didn't Dura Ace post that he was going a course somewhere in Greater Arabia?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
Given how unpopular he now is I am not sure bashing some of Labour's core voters is a great idea for Starmer
Rich pensioners getting WFP don't tend to be Labour voters.
Indeed, benefit "scroungers" may well be Reform voters, going by housing tenure data. 21% of people in social housing voted Reform, versus 13% renting and 14% with a mortgage.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
Let’s hope Leon is sleeping it off after his outbursts last night, or this thread will be hard work.
On topic, I’ve not had time to follow closely but surely the major issue with the current bill is nobody has yet written the safeguards into it, saying they will be added later?
*pokes raddled old hungover bear*
I wonder what are the views of Muslims on assisted dying?
Shabana Mahmood is against it and has cited her faith.
I don’t see why religious conviction causing an objection should be an issue.
She and others should stick their religion up their arses. If she does not want it fine, the clown should not be forcing her religious beliefs on the rest of the nation
Hi there Malc. Good morning. Hope all is good with you and yours
Hi Taz, Yes all great hope same for you. Mind you reading the tosh on here at times is not good for a human's blood pressure. A rarified cross section of the population to say the least and many have no grasp of real life..
Was my daughter's birthday recently , a significant one , got her this as a present
I have to ask.... Did you get her the horse as a present...
... or is your daughter the horse, and the present the high-viz outfit?
(Seriously Malc, that's a lovely present.)
LOL, the horse was indeed the present.
What a wonderful present Malc
Just be careful it's not a con, and it grows to be a carthorse.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Dura_Ace's issue is that he is consistently negative about everything. Which can be entertaining, but IMO does devalue everything he has to say. As an example, he never says anything positive about anyone, and is always deeply cynical about everyone. As he is a wise man, the exception is his good wife.
That's not quite true - he was very positive about some elements of the Army (something about counter-insurgency and small arms actions, dunno), and had similarly positive things to say about the RAF and Navy.
I think it's analogous to healthcare - both need to be increased as shares of GDP, but you have to be exceptionally careful that the money goes towards actually making people healthy/making the country safe.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
Which does far more to keep the planet safe, healthy and alive.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
Assisting an animal's death does not validate suicidal thoughts in other animals.
You're right, since the animal never expressed a desire to die.
We simply do it because it's the right thing to do, but then stand in the way of humans who can clearly communicate their own desires to do the right thing by themselves too.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Dura_Ace's issue is that he is consistently negative about everything. Which can be entertaining, but IMO does devalue everything he has to say. As an example, he never says anything positive about anyone, and is always deeply cynical about everyone. As he is a wise man, the exception is his good wife.
He made a very complimentary post about me once and that was after I had threatened to buy a Panther or a Cobra. To be fair I think it was along the lines of kjh is ok, which of course I took to be a compliment. I also mistook the use of only 4 f**ks to be an endorsement of me considering buying a J72 Panther. He was absent for a couple of weeks when he smashed his keyboard after I nearly bought a Cobra.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Watchkeeper was a classic example of project guaranteed not to work from the start. Reinvent the wheel, make it an irregular polygon and add “Unique British Requirements”
The way to get into a new field is to by existing kit on a scale that you can build a local factory to build it.
Then that facility can create more local design. This is how a lot of South Korea stuff got started.
See my proposal to buy the largest artillery park in Europe.
There are some exceptions - Brimstone, Starstreek….
Given how unpopular he now is I am not sure bashing some of Labour's core voters is a great idea for Starmer
Rich pensioners getting WFP don't tend to be Labour voters.
Indeed, benefit "scroungers" may well be Reform voters, going by housing tenure data. 21% of people in social housing voted Reform, versus 13% renting and 14% with a mortgage.
And Reform's highest vote share came from people who are unemployed or not in work - 17%, and with the lowest incomes - under £20,000 17% too.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Given how unpopular he now is I am not sure bashing some of Labour's core voters is a great idea for Starmer
Rich pensioners getting WFP don't tend to be Labour voters.
Indeed, benefit "scroungers" may well be Reform voters, going by housing tenure data. 21% of people in social housing voted Reform, versus 13% renting and 14% with a mortgage.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Defence spending has one of the best Keynesian multipliers (of public spending) if the money gets spent here. So it could be sold as a growth initiative. However it seems inefficient for each individual country in a common interest area such as Western Europe to be amassing a military capacity on the basis of "it against the world". Surely it's better to build and operate at least the critical mass of it as a joint venture. Otherwise the costs will be prohibitive.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
Assisting an animal's death does not validate suicidal thoughts in other animals.
You're right, since the animal never expressed a desire to die.
We simply do it because it's the right thing to do, but then stand in the way of humans who can clearly communicate their own desires to do the right thing by themselves too.
There are no simple universal solutions, Bart. Perhaps the best we can do is try to create laws that do not make difficult situations even worse.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Dura_Ace's issue is that he is consistently negative about everything. Which can be entertaining, but IMO does devalue everything he has to say. As an example, he never says anything positive about anyone, and is always deeply cynical about everyone. As he is a wise man, the exception is his good wife.
That's not quite true - he was very positive about some elements of the Army (something about counter-insurgency and small arms actions, dunno), and had similarly positive things to say about the RAF and Navy.
I think it's analogous to healthcare - both need to be increased as shares of GDP, but you have to be exceptionally careful that the money goes towards actually making people healthy/making the country safe.
I must admit to never having heard that.
Also, I fear he is not as expert as he makes out. But he's not here to defend himself.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Both him and Carlotta seem to have disappeared
Didn't Dura Ace post that he was going a course somewhere in Greater Arabia?
The alternative is he is languishing in jail for stealing another tuk-tuk...
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Defence spending has one of the best Keynesian multipliers (of public spending) if the money gets spent here. So it could be sold as a growth initiative. However it seems inefficient for each individual country in a common interest area such as Western Europe to be amassing a military capacity on the basis of "it against the world". Surely it's better to build and operate at least the critical mass of it as a joint venture. Otherwise the costs will be prohibitive.
Wrong.
This goes completely against all evidence of risk management that shows that multiple layers of defence, Swiss Cheese style, work far better than having a single layer with a critical control point that can fail.
If a single European joint venture falls under the leadership of a European Trump, or a Merkel, and a threat arises that the unified leader doesn't want to tackle (like Putin building forces at Ukraine's border) then we are left with no defences.
If we have a non unified defence force that is far superior. Those nations who are willing to confront the threat can do so, flying armaments around those nations unwilling to do so if necessary like British shipments of arms flying around German airspace prior to Putin's invasion.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Defence spending has one of the best Keynesian multipliers (of public spending) if the money gets spent here. So it could be sold as a growth initiative. However it seems inefficient for each individual country in a common interest area such as Western Europe to be amassing a military capacity on the basis of "it against the world". Surely it's better to build and operate at least the critical mass of it as a joint venture. Otherwise the costs will be prohibitive.
Have you looked at the history of many such joint ventures?
The Germans for both Tornado and Eurofighter claimed they would have the biggest buy. And got the majority of the work.
Then reduced their orders and threatened to collapse the projects if they didn’t keep their work share.
As U.K. defense minister, I would suggest that if we enter into another joint fighter project, we start by declaring our buy is 5,000. So we need 95% of the work…
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
Assisting an animal's death does not validate suicidal thoughts in other animals.
You're right, since the animal never expressed a desire to die.
We simply do it because it's the right thing to do, but then stand in the way of humans who can clearly communicate their own desires to do the right thing by themselves too.
There are no simple universal solutions, Bart. Perhaps the best we can do is try to create laws that do not make difficult situations even worse.
Indeed, which is why we need to create laws that allow the patient to choose rather than have interfering nobodies say the patient has no choice, like we do today, which makes the situation far worse.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
What makes you think Starmer is an easy touch for something that delivers him no political benefit?
Er, Chagos? Payments to ex-miners? Train drivers pay rises? Rosie Duffield's enemies?
Are you sure this isn't more a list of decisions you disagree with?
Chagos was exiting (as the Cons wanted to) an outdated arrangement that brought more hassle than benefit. The ex-miners was justified financially by the surplus and bought goodwill for little cost. The train drivers was to settle a strike that was becoming a real drag. Duffield was party management.
Now I'm not necessarily onboard with all of the above, but the point is he knew what he was doing with each of them. He wasn't being 'legged over' as such. I don't think he was anyway.
I think that is precisely where Starmer is going wrong. Their need to be a narrative, not just bashing dole-bludgers in the Mail and copying up to Blackrock. The same policy should be promoted as supporting people back to work, rather than bashing the skivers.
There was a very good thread on Bluesky yesterday from Clive Lewis, worth the read on why Starmer is floundering:
I think Occam’s Razor strips it back to Starmer & co being terrible at presentational politics. This has been disguised by years of the Tories being terrible at governing but Labour really need to get their act together and get some coaching on principled populism.
I think chalking it up to a few presentational difficulties is a bit gamey. How do you present a shit sandwich of a Government in a palatable way?
The government are clearly in a rush to get the bad stuff out early in the parliament. Not only that, but they are so taken in by the tough decisions rhetoric they are making things tougher than they need to be.
Giving away the Chagos Islands (which I don't massively care about) but still getting stiffed for a 99 year rental arrangement on behalf of the world's richest country (which I do care about) isn't 'getting stuff out of the way', it's an inept, irresponsible and deeply stupid blunder. Saying that we're skint but signing us up to every opportunity to give money away seems to be a Labour trait.
The budget is an even worse one. I keep hearing defences like yours that Labour are somehow 'mending the roof', but you totally ignore that the economy is a living organism and that by kicking it repeatedly in the balls the way they have done, their sums are already failing to add up due to the increased cost of borrowing and lower growth forecasts.
Then there's the nasty authoritarianism, the urge to ban things, the splurging of money at unreformed public services and wage rises, the venal 'the rules are for thee not me' approach to Governnent, the craven attitude to huge foreign corporations, the trashing of the Rwanda scheme only to cosy up to Meloni's Albania scheme.
I don't know what you'd be proud of if you voted for this Government, other than that your colour of rosette won.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Dura_Ace's issue is that he is consistently negative about everything. Which can be entertaining, but IMO does devalue everything he has to say. As an example, he never says anything positive about anyone, and is always deeply cynical about everyone. As he is a wise man, the exception is his good wife.
He was certainly entertaining, and shot from the hip, but my impression was that he apt to hit the target more often on Defence matters, especially when apparently talking from personal experience.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
I see the 1950s have reentered the room.
A lot of things were better in the 1950s, change since has not all been for the good
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What on earth are you talking about
You havent a clue about the real world
In some nations and amongst some communities arranged marriages by parents are still the norm, they may have always been loveless, other marriages aren't
Don't be a fool.
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
They generally don't become loveless, just couples don't work through their problems enough and expect marriage to be a perfect utopia all the time which it isn't, it requires effort from both partners
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
I think HYUFD's complaint is that it was too easy for the his grandad...
But that was also a very different era to now so the fact it hit his Dad hard may say more about that era than anything else..
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
Which does far more to keep the planet safe, healthy and alive.
Well let's see now it's in the hands of an shallow unstable demagogue with no love for democracy or liberal values.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
Which does far more to keep the planet safe, healthy and alive.
Well let's see now it's in the hands of an shallow unstable demagogue with no love for democracy or liberal values.
Trump was already president for four years and the world was more peaceful then.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
And its consequences often negative, especially for the wife
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
I think HYUFD's complaint is that it was too easy for the his grandad...
But that was also a very different era to now so the fact it hit his Dad hard may say more about that era than anything else..
Financially he was well supported and privately educated, emotionally it was much more difficult and that applies now as much as then to children of divorced parents
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
And its consequences often negative, especially for the wife
You mus\t be so frustrated that the Married Women's Property Acts were repealed. So much simpler when the man got *everything* in his name.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
I think HYUFD's complaint is that it was too easy for the his grandad...
But that was also a very different era to now so the fact it hit his Dad hard may say more about that era than anything else..
Indeed.
My mum's parents had a similar story to his dad's parents.
I mentioned that my grandparents all divorced before I was born, so I had 5 grandparents as a child, 2 non-biological, that was not because the 4th biological one was deceased.
My mum's dad left the family, remarried, and basically cut all ties with his first family. He saw me once when I was a baby and that was the last time my mum saw him.
My mum was in a near fatal car accident when I was 6 or 7, he was called, he never came to the hospital.
He died when I was in my 30s. I never knew him, and I never called him grandad. I do not consider him a grandparent, merely my mum's dad. My dad's mum's second husband OTOH he is my grandad.
Superb performance from Liz Kendal on Laura K over assisted death vote.
If only Starmer had the courage to make his own case rather than leaving it to others.
This one is personal not party, though, isn't it? So Kendal is making the Kendal case not the Labour one.
It is one of the more heartening aspects of the discussion that it is not Party Political. Long may it remain so.
I think they are less fortunate in the USA in this respect, but maybe I do them a injustice.
I'm not talking about Starmer making a government case. He needs to make his personal case. This has been a mess from the cabinet. They were told NOT to make statements on this and leave it to backbenchers so that it was clear that not a government vote - by Simon Case. Wes Streeting ignored it and so this morning has the justice sec. Both against. So Starmer now needs to say something imho.
Roy Jenkins allowed free votes on 1960s social changes but made damn sure everyone knew his view.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
You're obviously utterly ignorant of the realities of life in your preferred 1950s.
Just set up a seedy photograph session in a Brighton hotel and pretend adultery, hey presto divorce.
It’s interesting how there are very different attitudes to assist animals in severe pain and suffering than people.
Assisting an animal's death does not validate suicidal thoughts in other animals.
You're right, since the animal never expressed a desire to die.
We simply do it because it's the right thing to do, but then stand in the way of humans who can clearly communicate their own desires to do the right thing by themselves too.
There are no simple universal solutions, Bart. Perhaps the best we can do is try to create laws that do not make difficult situations even worse.
Indeed, which is why we need to create laws that allow the patient to choose rather than have interfering nobodies say the patient has no choice, like we do today, which makes the situation far worse.
That's about my starting point,Bart, but we aren't speaking for everyone and the need for safeguards is obvious, even if where to put them isn't.
Anyway, I'm ok, in case you were worried. Mrs PtP has the funds for my one way ticket to visit the polar bears when the time is right.
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
Which does far more to keep the planet safe, healthy and alive.
Well let's see now it's in the hands of an shallow unstable demagogue with no love for democracy or liberal values.
And yet you want Europe's forces unified so they could fall under the control of a single demagogue too.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
And its consequences often negative, especially for the wife
You mus\t be so frustrated that the Married Women's Property Acts were repealed. So much simpler when the man got *everything* in his name.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
And its consequences often negative, especially for the wife
You mus\t be so frustrated that the Married Women's Property Acts were repealed. So much simpler when the man got *everything* in his name.
(Unless the wife's family had expensive lawyers.)
That was about 100 years before no fault divorce
Not true. About 350 years *after*. You're forgetting Henry VIII. Definitely not his fault, no milord.
I couldn't join the debate last evening but did I see @Casino_Royale advocating targeted tax rises to pay for increased defence expenditure?
As we don't do hypothecated taxation, it couldn't be as blatant as that but it's an interesting approach for a Party which has never, to my knowledge, been serious about tax rises (hasn't stopped them when in Government of course and you could argue allowing local councils to raise additional funds via the social care precept is tax raising by proxy).
An overall 2p rise in rates to cover increased defence spending looks a reasonable approach - there will be those who question the efficacy of the Ministry of Defence when it comes to using resources efficently and effectively and that's a valid point. If we accuse the NHS of being a bottomless pit, couldn't the same be said of Defence and the armed forces? I'm no expert.
Nonetheless, recognising the need for additional defence spending is one thing but being prepared to countenance tax rises to cover it would be an important step forward and perhaps one which would achieve a degree of cross party concensus which would be useful.
Thanks. I'm not "serious" about tax rises but I am serious about this country having a strong defence, which I view as the first duty of any government.
This would keep the basic rate of income tax still below what it was in the 1990s and with an inflation linked state pension maintained.
Seems a bargain to me. The alternative is gambling the whole safety of the nation.
Point taken, CR, and in principle I agree but Dura Ace (where he now?), one of the few PBers with wide and direct experience of the Defence biz, reckoned he wouldn't give the MoD an extra penny until it sorted itself out.
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
Reflecting on their lives with the experience of age I wonder if it would have been better for my sister and myself if my parents had divorced.
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
Well said, and I'm so sorry for her situation.
Nobody should be forced against their will to live in misery like that.
This Bill is a good starting point but it does not remotely go far enough. The six month rule should be eliminated. I hope it gets amended out.
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
So sorry to read this which will chime with many others experiencing similar issues
I really do not have an answer to a terrible problem
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
You have no problem with these sorts of dumbed down antics when it's the pop right doing it. Trump, Farage et al. Do they have exclusive rights to the joshing/trolling space or something?
@Casino_Royale thanks for any interesting post on defence in the previous theread. I strongly agree with you in principle - we need to decide what defence capability we need, and work back from there.
With regard to your detail, I don't pretend to be an expert, but my instinct is to err strongly on the side of investing in defending our islands, then naval power, and not on troops. Every single time we get involved in a large scale boots on the ground operation, we suffer, from the Wars of the Spanish Succession, through WW1, to Iraq. I am sick of it. It is much better that where we project power at all, it should be naval force, with drones and a small amount of marines where necessary.
Therefore your calculations on soldiers look too much to me. Where there are soldiers, there will be some ***t in Downing Street wanting to commit them to some conflict to look big in front of his mates.
I would prioritise missile defence, and I would also like the ability to fire torpedos from under the sea from multiple locations around the UK at anyone who threatens us.
Afaik, current military procurement is itself in the hands of an American company. That's no way to organise national defence - it's a sop to the US military industrial complex. They need to be sacked and probably the rest of the MOD with them, before anything good can come about.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
And its consequences often negative, especially for the wife
You mus\t be so frustrated that the Married Women's Property Acts were repealed. So much simpler when the man got *everything* in his name.
(Unless the wife's family had expensive lawyers.)
That was about 100 years before no fault divorce
Not true. About 350 years *after*. You're forgetting Henry VIII. Definitely not his fault, no milord.
On a point of pedantry:
Henry VIII was never divorced.
He thrice declared his marriages annulled, which is not quite the same thing.
(It remains something of a mystery why he didn't declare his marriage to Catherine Howard annulled before her execution, as he did with Anne Boleyn, but he didn't.)
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
A friend of ours mum was in a similar, but not quite as bad, state until she died earlier this year. I get the impression her passing was a relief to her family, as her suffering was over. (Not their suffering, as they're still having to negotiate the shits at the Church of England's mortgage scheme.)
It also made what could have been a celebration of a fascinating life, ended at the right time, into a long and protracted sadness.
(She had several falls at home; one of her sons suspects that at least one was a deliberate attempt. It did not work, and she passed a few weeks after going into a home.)
You have no problem with these sorts of dumbed down antics when it's the pop right doing it. Trump, Farage et al. Do they have exclusive rights to the joshing/trolling space or something?
Where does he imagine that it's leading? Does he think that "day 283 of Ed Davey asking to play video games with Keir Starmer" will capture the imagination of the nation?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
Good riddance to him then.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
And its consequences often negative, especially for the wife
You mus\t be so frustrated that the Married Women's Property Acts were repealed. So much simpler when the man got *everything* in his name.
(Unless the wife's family had expensive lawyers.)
That was about 100 years before no fault divorce
Not true. About 350 years *after*. You're forgetting Henry VIII. Definitely not his fault, no milord.
On a point of pedantry:
Henry VIII was never divorced.
He thrice declared his marriages annulled, which is not quite the same thing.
(It remains something of a mystery why he didn't declare his marriage to Catherine Howard annulled before her execution, as he did with Anne Boleyn, but he didn't.)
He didn't have a replacement lined up for Ms Howard, as he had for Ms Boleyn?
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I share your antipathy to ultrafeminism, and to woke's ambivalence to tge traditional family. But it's worth noting that this is a fringe position, albeit a disproportionately influential one; and it's also worth noting that a decline in birth rate also exists in much more traditional societies (such as East Asia).
My view is that decline in birth rates is simply a product of societies, however they are structured - individualist or collectivist, traditional or modern - having to divert an ever greater share of resources towards the over 65s, leaving less for the under 16s.
China and India are still defined by the United Nations as "developing" countries.
As a result, the nations have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries.
Normally shunned by the international community, the Taliban delegation was allowed to attend because of the severe problems facing Afghanistan.
The country is seen as one of the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as being one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Kheel says the Taliban delegation is "raising the voice of people vulnerable to the impact of climate change, including women, children and men".
Doubtless they'll have got ol' Starmer to stick his hand in our collective pockets though
Interesting lack of balance from the BBC in the reporting too.
A lot of views from people saying it's not enough money.
No views from anyone suggesting it is a waste of money, or that it could be better spent elsewhere, or that much of the money sent in aid could be swallowed up by corruption and not serve its intended purpose.
Entirely one slanted criticism.
They wanted over 1 trillion dollars yearly
Equals the US military budget.
Which does far more to keep the planet safe, healthy and alive.
Well let's see now it's in the hands of an shallow unstable demagogue with no love for democracy or liberal values.
Trump was already president for four years and the world was more peaceful then.
The global situation is more precarious now and the man himself is older, crazier and with his clear election win, Congress, the SC, and almost total ownership of the GOP, considerably more powerful. It might all work out fine - I really hope so - but there's a serious risk that it won't.
You have no problem with these sorts of dumbed down antics when it's the pop right doing it. Trump, Farage et al. Do they have exclusive rights to the joshing/trolling space or something?
I don’t think anyone had a strong objection to Ed Davey twatting about in ponds during the election campaign. It's the fact that he seems to think opposing what has now turned out to be the least liberal Government in living history is best acheived by a chummy gaming session that now looks somewhat stale.
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
Well said, and I'm so sorry for her situation.
Nobody should be forced against their will to live in misery like that.
This Bill is a good starting point but it does not remotely go far enough. The six month rule should be eliminated. I hope it gets amended out.
If it gets amended out then the bill wont pass I strongly suspect.
As it is I can't see this passing now. Not when the f*cking Justice Sec has started saying the law wont work and isn't tight enough etc etc.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
Well said, and I'm so sorry for her situation.
Nobody should be forced against their will to live in misery like that.
This Bill is a good starting point but it does not remotely go far enough. The six month rule should be eliminated. I hope it gets amended out.
I think we should have the capacity to direct our future care now, when we are mentally competent. We can direct that we receive no medication other than pain relief, that in the event of us losing mental capacity we do not want to be revived, that if we become physically incompetent to care for ourselves that we should receive no more care than is necessary for us to become comfortable and, subject to appropriate safeguards, if we become mentally incompetent we are to be given a fatal dose of something painless.
I would sign such a document now, in a heart beat. I would not want to live the way my mother in law does. I think I should have the right to make these choices and for them to be binding on future medical practitioners. My critique of this bill is that it does not go nearly far enough and does not address our real problems. Perhaps it will be a trial where difficulties can be ironed out but in my earlier sixties I am impatient for this to be resolved. Looking at my mother in law with genuine affection and compassion is scary.
We are going through a difficult time with my mother in law at the moment. She is 88 and has vascular dementia. She has been a widow for 11 years now and was an effective widow for some years before that as her husband had dementia too and she devoted her life to caring for him.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
Many sympathies. I think (backed up by the findings in the survey) that most people feel that adults in that sort of hopeless situation should be allowed to end their lives, though of course family should do all they can to give an alternative that offers some pleasure. The condition that the illness must be fatal seems to me to miss the point - I'd be keen (I think) to live as long as possible, but if I didn't then it seems intrusive to insist.
The problem of family pressure is a real one but relatively small - I think that most families are 99% sympathetic, and only to a negligible degree concerned with earlier inheritance. But of course the Bill needs proper precautions to deal with the rare exceptions.
MPs seem deeply divided on the issue, more so than the general public. At a crude level there's the question of losing votes over such a seminal issue, but I hope most people will accept that MPs are generally seriously wrestling with the details and it's inappropriate to threaten to withhold support over the issue.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
You're obviously utterly ignorant of the realities of life in your preferred 1950s.
Just set up a seedy photograph session in a Brighton hotel and pretend adultery, hey presto divorce.
An excellent boost to the British Tourism Industry. Especially the 'seedy hotel' sector.
But yeah. There's a social cost to easy divorce etc, but it's lower than the cost of the alternative. Nivarna doesn't exist on planet Earth, and probably can't.
Superb performance from Liz Kendal on Laura K over assisted death vote.
If only Starmer had the courage to make his own case rather than leaving it to others.
This one is personal not party, though, isn't it? So Kendal is making the Kendal case not the Labour one.
It is one of the more heartening aspects of the discussion that it is not Party Political. Long may it remain so.
I think they are less fortunate in the USA in this respect, but maybe I do them a injustice.
You don't. Eg a woman's right to have an abortion up to a reasonable timeframe should imo be above politics. It's fundamental to holding women of equal worth to men.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
What would the impact have been if they had stayed together and argued all the time? You may be able to guess, but you don't know.
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
The traditional family is the backbone of civilisation and the nation state, ultra feminism and wokeism has been focused on undermining it at every turn and the result is our dreadfully low 1.4 fertility rate now. Children with strong families behind them also do better at school and are less likely to fall into crime.
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I agree that a strong family life is important. But not if that family life is corrosive, as it all too often is. It is the only way to live, and that people cannot be happy, thriving and good members of society as single parents, or divorced.
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
The ultra woke, uber feminists however just hate the whole concept of the traditional family as a concept. Now Vance may have been criticised for his 'childless cat ladies' comments and saying not enough women are producing children in a traditional family but in the privacy of the ballot box more Americans voted for him and Trump than woke childless Harris and Walz.
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
I probably know more "ultra woke, uber feminists" than you. You'd probably classify Mrs J as one.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I was in a car with a couple of 20 year old girls the other day and they were fuming at Emmeline Pankhurst 'deciding we shouldn't be housewives any more - how dare she?' it wasn't said entirely seriously but it was an interesting and amusing perspective.
I lean in favour of assisted dying, but don't have a strong view.
Of course, one can take one's stance from our moral leaders - any proposed reform that churches oppose, from ending the burning of witches and heretics to legalising divorce to more or less anything Mrs Thatcher did, is usually an excellent idea.
Divorce laws in the UK are too liberal now with no fault divorce. Having a negative effect on the family and fertility rates
What conceivable benefit would you expect to acru from restricting divorce? Couples stuck in loveless marriages are not likely to bring children into them and if they did it would be for entirely the wrong reasons to the detriment of everyone.
Unless it was an arranged marriage no marriage would be loveless otherwise they would never have got married in the first place.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
What a naive view.
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
My father's parents divorced and it had a negative impact on his teenage years and hit his mother hard while his father remarried.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
My mother got a divorce in the late 1960's. It was incredibly difficult and took an absolute age, being one of the reasons the Denning Reforms came about. My father was a serial philanderer and he walked out the family home just after my sister was born in 1962. There was no fault on my mother's part. He was finally forced by the courts to pay maintenance in the princely sum of £4 a week. But the marriage still could not be ended for an age longer.
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
I have already said I don't oppose divorce on the grounds of adultery, even Jesus did not oppose divorce when one party had committed sexual immorality and cheated on the other.
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
Reflecting on their lives with the experience of age I wonder if it would have been better for my sister and myself if my parents had divorced.
Sometimes, there’s no choice, but to divorce. Staying together can be a miserable experience for the whole family.
But, I don’t think that @HYUFD’s argument is without merit. In my experience, some divorces are done for reasons that are frivolous or selfish - eg a man wants to trade his wife in for a younger model, leaving her with the children; or a woman resents being married to a man who earns less than she does.
Comments
Stodge's caution and concern may well be justified.
Dominic Cummings: is AI already in control?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoG5EammWI4
That needs to factor into our medium term procurement spending plans.
The service economy is another legacy of Mrs.T .
100 years ago most people had 2 or more children even if they largely rented their entire lives and never owned a property. More women working full time has also meant higher joint incomes to get mortgages which has in turn raised property prices
In real terms GDP per capita (PPP) China now has a higher GDP per capita than some countries that are and were classed as developed in 1990.
Since the benchmark of 1990 is used in all this for emissions etc I feel it's only fair that it is used for development too.
Instead of defining which countries are developed in a list that doesn't change, it should be benchmarked based on a threshold that met the term developed in 1990.
China, Brazil and Argentina have all surpassed that threshold.
No marriage is perfect, you work through the downs and arguments as well as the ups
The UK is still by value one of the largest manufacturers on the planet (top 10).
Biden, Macron, Scholz, UVL, China, India, Indonesia and many others were not even there
Love sometimes lasts, but love sometimes dies. At which point it becomes loveless.
Go through ups and downs, yes, my wife and I have had ups and downs and we still love each other. That is a healthy marriage.
If you only have downs and the love is gone, then it's not a healthy marriage and it should be terminated.
All my biological grandparents divorced. Both my dad's parents remarried before I was even born and had a happy, healthy second marriage that took them to the end of their lives. Them divorcing and remarrying was the best thing that ever happened to them, and the family as a whole.
I was also lucky enough then to grow up with 5 grandparents (3 biological, 2 not) and am fortunate still have the two non-biological grandparents whom I love as my grandparents every bit as much as the biological ones.
Indeed, benefit "scroungers" may well be Reform voters, going by housing tenure data. 21% of people in social housing voted Reform, versus 13% renting and 14% with a mortgage.
You havent a clue about the real world
I think it's analogous to healthcare - both need to be increased as shares of GDP, but you have to be exceptionally careful that the money goes towards actually making people healthy/making the country safe.
We simply do it because it's the right thing to do, but then stand in the way of humans who can clearly communicate their own desires to do the right thing by themselves too.
The way to get into a new field is to by existing kit on a scale that you can build a local factory to build it.
Then that facility can create more local design. This is how a lot of South Korea stuff got started.
See my proposal to buy the largest artillery park in Europe.
There are some exceptions - Brimstone, Starstreek….
If only Starmer had the courage to make his own case rather than leaving it to others.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election
The question is not whether a marriages was always loveless.
The problem is those marriages that have become loveless.
Also, I fear he is not as expert as he makes out. But he's not here to defend himself.
Divorce is simply too easy nowadays, unless there is adultery or domestic violence involved divorce should be an absolute last resort and best avoided
This goes completely against all evidence of risk management that shows that multiple layers of defence, Swiss Cheese style, work far better than having a single layer with a critical control point that can fail.
If a single European joint venture falls under the leadership of a European Trump, or a Merkel, and a threat arises that the unified leader doesn't want to tackle (like Putin building forces at Ukraine's border) then we are left with no defences.
If we have a non unified defence force that is far superior. Those nations who are willing to confront the threat can do so, flying armaments around those nations unwilling to do so if necessary like British shipments of arms flying around German airspace prior to Putin's invasion.
The Germans for both Tornado and Eurofighter claimed they would have the biggest buy. And got the majority of the work.
Then reduced their orders and threatened to collapse the projects if they didn’t keep their work share.
As U.K. defense minister, I would suggest that if we enter into another joint fighter project, we start by declaring our buy is 5,000. So we need 95% of the work…
Like many 'religious' people, you just want other people to undergo misery so your view of morality is not threatened.
Chagos was exiting (as the Cons wanted to) an outdated arrangement that brought more hassle than benefit. The ex-miners was justified financially by the surplus and bought goodwill for little cost. The train drivers was to settle a strike that was becoming a real drag. Duffield was party management.
Now I'm not necessarily onboard with all of the above, but the point is he knew what he was doing with each of them. He wasn't being 'legged over' as such. I don't think he was anyway.
The budget is an even worse one. I keep hearing defences like yours that Labour are somehow 'mending the roof', but you totally ignore that the economy is a living organism and that by kicking it repeatedly in the balls the way they have done, their sums are already failing to add up due to the increased cost of borrowing and lower growth forecasts.
Then there's the nasty authoritarianism, the urge to ban things, the splurging of money at unreformed public services and wage rises, the venal 'the rules are for thee not me' approach to Governnent, the craven attitude to huge foreign corporations, the trashing of the Rwanda scheme only to cosy up to Meloni's Albania scheme.
I don't know what you'd be proud of if you voted for this Government, other than that your colour of rosette won.
Divorce is not remotely easy, as your own story demonstrates.
But that was also a very different era to now so the fact it hit his Dad hard may say more about that era than anything else..
Ultra liberal obsession with short term me first 'happyness' leads to long term misery for society all too frequently
I think they are less fortunate in the USA in this respect, but maybe I do them a injustice.
John Rentoul @rentouljohn.bsky.social
·
2m
I was sceptical about Liz Kendall, work & pensions sec, repeating old slogans, but this is a good interview docs.google.com/document/d/1...
https://bsky.app/profile/rentouljohn.bsky.social/post/3lboxru4yfs2e
Allowing my mother to escape being trapped in a marriage was no "last resort"; splitting from him was not "best avoided", as for one thing it would have prevented her getting another successful, joyous marriage to my stepfather. The strain of the broken relationship and the attempts to get a divorce caused her to have several nervous breakdowns. No child should have had to endure seeing their parent go through ECT.
Your world view is so constrained. It would result in so much pain for others if rigidly adopted.
Starmer hasn't done some sort of special UK signature in blood, has he?
(Unless the wife's family had expensive lawyers.)
That is not the same as supporting no fault divorce though, which I oppose even though it is now legal in the UK
My mum's parents had a similar story to his dad's parents.
I mentioned that my grandparents all divorced before I was born, so I had 5 grandparents as a child, 2 non-biological, that was not because the 4th biological one was deceased.
My mum's dad left the family, remarried, and basically cut all ties with his first family. He saw me once when I was a baby and that was the last time my mum saw him.
My mum was in a near fatal car accident when I was 6 or 7, he was called, he never came to the hospital.
He died when I was in my 30s. I never knew him, and I never called him grandad. I do not consider him a grandparent, merely my mum's dad. My dad's mum's second husband OTOH he is my grandad.
Family is more than blood.
Roy Jenkins allowed free votes on 1960s social changes but made damn sure everyone knew his view.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1860642109948063858
Just set up a seedy photograph session in a Brighton hotel and pretend adultery, hey presto divorce.
Anyway, I'm ok, in case you were worried. Mrs PtP has the funds for my one way ticket to visit the polar bears when the time is right.
She takes 7 pills each morning and a blood thinner at night. She has medication for her blood pressure, for her heart, for her tendencies to retain excess liquid and statins. She is utterly miserable. She sees people who are not there. They sometimes frighten her. Despite my wife's enormous efforts and 2 carers she spends a lot of time alone talking to her photographs and apparently hearing them talking back. She is becoming ever more incontinent.
She has expressed, repeatedly, that she sees no point in her life, that she is a burden and that she gets very little pleasure from it. But, of course, she would not be eligible under this bill. We are spending quite a lot of money and medical care keeping her alive. Why? Why do we torture our elderly in this way?
I'd argue "ultra feminism" has arisen due to the actions of men like you, who seem to want women to stay at home, be miserable, and pump out loads of kids. In other words, slaves.
(I'd also argue that there's a much bigger issue than divorce: the fact people many live away from their extended families. In ye olden days, men would often die or be absent due to disease, accident or war, leaving the women to care for their kids. But those women more often lived near extended family who would have with the child rearing and general life. That's less common nowadays, and I would strongly argue that people who want to increase the 'fertility rate' might better look at helping everyone raise children than coercing women into having kids they don't want. Which would mean much more money going to state-funded nurseries and childcare.)
Perhaps she has a new boy friend.
Nobody should be forced against their will to live in misery like that.
This Bill is a good starting point but it does not remotely go far enough. The six month rule should be eliminated. I hope it gets amended out.
I really do not have an answer to a terrible problem
The rise of Meloni to power in Italy, pushing more funding and support for mothers is similarly the start of a backlash against the woke anti family agenda
With regard to your detail, I don't pretend to be an expert, but my instinct is to err strongly on the side of investing in defending our islands, then naval power, and not on troops. Every single time we get involved in a large scale boots on the ground operation, we suffer, from the Wars of the Spanish Succession, through WW1, to Iraq. I am sick of it. It is much better that where we project power at all, it should be naval force, with drones and a small amount of marines where necessary.
Therefore your calculations on soldiers look too much to me. Where there are soldiers, there will be some ***t in Downing Street wanting to commit them to some conflict to look big in front of his mates.
I would prioritise missile defence, and I would also like the ability to fire torpedos from under the sea from multiple locations around the UK at anyone who threatens us.
Afaik, current military procurement is itself in the hands of an American company. That's no way to organise national defence - it's a sop to the US military industrial complex. They need to be sacked and probably the rest of the MOD with them, before anything good can come about.
Henry VIII was never divorced.
He thrice declared his marriages annulled, which is not quite the same thing.
(It remains something of a mystery why he didn't declare his marriage to Catherine Howard annulled before her execution, as he did with Anne Boleyn, but he didn't.)
Based on what has been agreed we've incredibly not even agreed to a set amount, merely the total.
America's next POTUS has already said they won't be contributing and this agreement means if they don't then we have to make up the difference.
Insane!
It also made what could have been a celebration of a fascinating life, ended at the right time, into a long and protracted sadness.
(She had several falls at home; one of her sons suspects that at least one was a deliberate attempt. It did not work, and she passed a few weeks after going into a home.)
My view is that decline in birth rates is simply a product of societies, however they are structured - individualist or collectivist, traditional or modern - having to divert an ever greater share of resources towards the over 65s, leaving less for the under 16s.
As it is I can't see this passing now. Not when the f*cking Justice Sec has started saying the law wont work and isn't tight enough etc etc.
But I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. It's male dinosaurs such as yourself that feed wokeism and feminism, by treating women and others as inferior for *reasons*. And I hate to tell you this; things are not perfect now; but they were far worse in the past that you seem to revere.
"not enough women are producing children in a traditional family"
That's because, for many men, a "traditional family" subjugates women. And from your comments, I guess you have the same view. Too many men see a "traditional family" as being one where they are in control. I think the successful families, then and now, are ones where control is shared. But some women, and many, many men, are not ready for that.
(And Walz was not childless?)
I would sign such a document now, in a heart beat. I would not want to live the way my mother in law does. I think I should have the right to make these choices and for them to be binding on future medical practitioners. My critique of this bill is that it does not go nearly far enough and does not address our real problems. Perhaps it will be a trial where difficulties can be ironed out but in my earlier sixties I am impatient for this to be resolved. Looking at my mother in law with genuine affection and compassion is scary.
The problem of family pressure is a real one but relatively small - I think that most families are 99% sympathetic, and only to a negligible degree concerned with earlier inheritance. But of course the Bill needs proper precautions to deal with the rare exceptions.
MPs seem deeply divided on the issue, more so than the general public. At a crude level there's the question of losing votes over such a seminal issue, but I hope most people will accept that MPs are generally seriously wrestling with the details and it's inappropriate to threaten to withhold support over the issue.
But yeah. There's a social cost to easy divorce etc, but it's lower than the cost of the alternative. Nivarna doesn't exist on planet Earth, and probably can't.
But, I don’t think that @HYUFD’s argument is without merit. In my experience, some divorces are done for reasons that are frivolous or selfish - eg a man wants to trade his wife in for a younger model, leaving her with the children; or a woman resents being married to a man who earns less than she does.