I presume he means at present, rather than ever. Wikipedia has him as the sixth Jewish person to lead a political party in the UK, and that's not counting Tony Cliff founding the SWP.
Disraeli, Samuel, Howard, Miliband.
Who's the other? Serious question as I'm struggling to work it out.
This tripped me up a few years ago.
Wikipedia (and some other resources) list Sir Jimmy Goldsmith for his stint as leader of the Referendum Party.
He counts because for a while they had one MP.
Anyone remember did George Gardner ever sit in the commons as a Ref MP? Seem to remember someone who used to be a Tory MP standing against the Tories for Referendum party at one point
He did, for two weeks.
Edit - He also stood for the Referendum Party in Reigate in 1997, he finished fourth, the winner was some chap called Crispin Blunt, whatever happened to him?
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
I doubt the Telegraph or its readership gives a toss about fish banks or the fate of the silky shark, but I do, and I've long said that the worst part of the Chagos deal is the adverse effect it will have on marine life. Not just in the protected region, but in the whole ocean (which the protected region helps to repopulate), which humanity is sadly plundering into extinction.
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
It’s not really news given the EU have had an agreement for years with Mauritius . This is just more concocted hysteria from the DT which has become a joke paper full of anti EU bilge .
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
It’s not really news given the EU have had an agreement for years with Mauritius . This is just more concocted hysteria from the DT which has become a joke paper full of anti EU bilge .
Sell Chagos to China
Every future edition of the Telegraph, Mail, Express will self compost
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Idea to make everyone (left and right) scream -
Have a child and get a 4 bed house. Free.
I was quite pleased when Trafford Council gave me an 80 litre wheelybin for general waste once we became a family of 5 rather than the standard 40 litre one.
General Waste - inventor of the dust bin!
I've only just remembered the 80s classic 'Dusty Bin'.
Ted Rogers was like watching a Kemi Badenoch speech.
He just ended up totally confusing everyone and contradicting himself
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
I presume he means at present, rather than ever. Wikipedia has him as the sixth Jewish person to lead a political party in the UK, and that's not counting Tony Cliff founding the SWP.
Disraeli, Samuel, Howard, Miliband.
Who's the other? Serious question as I'm struggling to work it out.
This tripped me up a few years ago.
Wikipedia (and some other resources) list Sir Jimmy Goldsmith for his stint as leader of the Referendum Party.
He counts because for a while they had one MP.
Elected as a Conservative though, I think? So not really valid.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you but ‘we’ are all going to die out in any case.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
I'm intrigued, where's this country that has youthful women giving birth causing everyone to live for ever?
I presume he means at present, rather than ever. Wikipedia has him as the sixth Jewish person to lead a political party in the UK, and that's not counting Tony Cliff founding the SWP.
Disraeli, Samuel, Howard, Miliband.
Who's the other? Serious question as I'm struggling to work it out.
This tripped me up a few years ago.
Wikipedia (and some other resources) list Sir Jimmy Goldsmith for his stint as leader of the Referendum Party.
He counts because for a while they had one MP.
Elected as a Conservative though, I think? So not really valid.
I certainly wouldn’t count him as a party leader.
I don't count him either but others do.
I pointed out if the only MP you ever had only came via defection and not via the ballot box then it really shouldn't count, it's like losing your virginity to a prostitute.
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
That’s Iranian propaganda and misinformation so you should really post it. It’s well done though, I’ll give them that
Indeed. The laundry fire story is seemingly bullshit though as the Ford doesn't have a laundry that could catch fire that way, precisely to avoid this situation.
My speculation - only speculation - is a mutiny or something close to it.
This guy reckons the laundry fire was real, but there was also a sotto-voce revolt amongst the seamen (long tour of duty) combined with a really stupid toilet design and plumbing. In short, they can't sleep (not enough berths), can't wash, can't poo, can't get clean clothes and have been at sea too long. Plus USN vessels are nonalcoholic.
At 3:46 or so, aircraft are taking off with what looks like some sort of lid or hatch open - what/why is that, please?
@AnneJGP , The F35 is a plane made by Lockheed, with contributions from BAe and others. It is meant as a tri-service aircraft: different variants are used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The Marine version is the vertical or short-take-off-and-landing (STOL) version, called the F35B. It has an extra engine at the front, just behind the pilot. That engine points downwards and gives the aircraft more lift during take-off and landing. This enables the plane to land easily on the smaller aircraft carriers.
To enable the extra engine to get enough air, the lid opens during take-off and landing.
We use the same plane for the same reason. Because we don't have arrestor gear on our carriers, we use a technique called shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL), which is a combination of vertical landing and short landing.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
Macron's former PM Philippe after he was re elected as Mayor of Le Havre is Bardella's likely run off opponent and on those polls the only candidate who has a chance to beat him.
Either way it will be a shift right, Philippe has his own centre right party now, Horizons, Bardella is obviously nationalist right, and even Retailleau who does next best after Phillippe v Bardella leads Les Republicains. Whereas Glucksmann is leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament and Melenchon leads the hard left LFI.
The right has not won a French presidential election since Sarkozy won in 2007 19 years ago. Hollande winning in 2012 for the Socialists and Macron winning in 2017 and 2022 for the liberal centre with Socialists and Macron's party also winning the French legislative elections in that time
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
How would that work with people not entering the job market to 21/22 and wanting to get somewhere before taking a break
Quite easily, you have 3 or 4 years and then you have a child, of course the working class enter the job market at 16-18 and have their children on average several years younger than the university attending more career focused middle class
I presume he means at present, rather than ever. Wikipedia has him as the sixth Jewish person to lead a political party in the UK, and that's not counting Tony Cliff founding the SWP.
Disraeli, Samuel, Howard, Miliband.
Who's the other? Serious question as I'm struggling to work it out.
This tripped me up a few years ago.
Wikipedia (and some other resources) list Sir Jimmy Goldsmith for his stint as leader of the Referendum Party.
He counts because for a while they had one MP.
Elected as a Conservative though, I think? So not really valid.
I certainly wouldn’t count him as a party leader.
He led a party. That party had a huge influence on British politics. What more do you want?
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
There is plenty of material that justifies criticism of Starmer's tenure as Prime Minister, but the Telegraph in particular create false or misleading narratives to kick him further.
The Chagos arrangement is a case in point. It would seem to me that those who are triggered by Starmer are triggered by Chagos. These players also create a narrative that Starmer has had a chaotic war which they initially compared to Farage and Badenoch's righteous resolution to support Trump and Netanyahu at all costs. I remember a post on here claiming Starmer was "weak, weak, weak" yet when their narrative faltered they went after Starmer by crusing his approval of US defensive action in the Gulf. So to the Telegraph and PB's Telegraph groupies, Starmer was wrong to decline Trump's request to launch the illegal Iran War from Chagos yet now he is wrong to let the USAF defend the Gulf states from Fairford.
Starmer is a poor Prime Minister in lots of ways, so why do the Telegraph etc. have to make up shite?
Macron's former PM Philippe after he was re elected as Mayor of Le Havre is Bardella's likely run off opponent and on those polls the only candidate who has a chance to beat him.
Either way it will be a shift right, Philippe has his own centre right party now, Horizons, Bardella is obviously nationalist right, and even Retailleau who does next best after Phillippe v Bardella leads Les Republicains. Whereas Glucksmann is leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament and Melenchon leads the hard left LFI.
The right has not won a French presidential election since Sarkozy won in 2007 19 years ago. Hollande winning in 2012 for the Socialists and Macron winning in 2017 and 2022 for the liberal centre with Socialists and Macron's party also winning the French legislative elections in that time
The French propensity to create and rename parties as fast as Damon Albarn creates bands is always fascinating.
I presume he means at present, rather than ever. Wikipedia has him as the sixth Jewish person to lead a political party in the UK, and that's not counting Tony Cliff founding the SWP.
Disraeli, Samuel, Howard, Miliband.
Who's the other? Serious question as I'm struggling to work it out.
This tripped me up a few years ago.
Wikipedia (and some other resources) list Sir Jimmy Goldsmith for his stint as leader of the Referendum Party.
He counts because for a while they had one MP.
Elected as a Conservative though, I think? So not really valid.
I certainly wouldn’t count him as a party leader.
He led a party. That party had a huge influence on British politics. What more do you want?
Sir James the first party leader to really call for a referendum on leaving the EU, the Referendum Party got 2.6% of the vote under his leadership in 1997 ahead of UKIP on 0.3%
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
There is plenty of material that justifies criticism of Starmer's tenure as Prime Minister, but the Telegraph in particular create false or misleading narratives to kick him further.
The Chagos arrangement is a case in point. It would seem to me that those who are triggered by Starmer are triggered by Chagos. These players also create a narrative that Starmer has had a chaotic war which they initially compared to Farage and Badenoch's righteous resolution to support Trump and Netanyahu at all costs. I remember a post on here claiming Starmer was "weak, weak, weak" yet when their narrative faltered they went after Starmer by crusing his approval of US defensive action in the Gulf. So to the Telegraph and PB's Telegraph groupies, Starmer was wrong to decline Trump's request to launch the illegal Iran War from Chagos yet now he is wrong to let the USAF defend the Gulf states from Fairford.
Starmer is a poor Prime Minister in lots of ways, so why do the Telegraph etc. have to make up shite?
Except it isn't made up, I linked the report from the EU earlier in the thread.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Idea to make everyone (left and right) scream -
Have a child and get a 4 bed house. Free.
I was quite pleased when Trafford Council gave me an 80 litre wheelybin for general waste once we became a family of 5 rather than the standard 40 litre one.
General Waste - inventor of the dust bin!
I've only just remembered the 80s classic 'Dusty Bin'.
No this is different. Bardella was ahead of Philippe in the other poll by 52 to 48.
In that case to make your point did you need to repeat Bardella beating all comers? It seems to me you were repeating what you posted yesterday that Bardella is almost invincible. If the point was Bardella's dominance is no longer universal shouldn't you have pointed that out?
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
Yes, the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. But not by voting for a party that is basically the voice of 2016 Leave voters who haven't died yet.
"EU plot to seize Chagos fishing rights after Starmer’s surrender One of world’s largest protected marine areas at risk of ‘catastrophic’ exploitation by French and Spanish vessels"
"The European Union has been accused of seeking to exploit Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos Islands surrender by securing fishing rights in the waters of the British territory.
Brussels believes the Prime Minister’s plan to transfer sovereignty “could further increase the relevance” of its existing fishing agreement with Mauritius by opening swathes of ocean around the Chagos Islands to French and Spanish vessels.
A report from the European Commission, seen by The Telegraph, reveals it is watching Britain’s Chagos deal with great interest.
The document, published this month, says the deal could open the door to fishing licences in a major boost to European-owned trawlers."
There is plenty of material that justifies criticism of Starmer's tenure as Prime Minister, but the Telegraph in particular create false or misleading narratives to kick him further.
The Chagos arrangement is a case in point. It would seem to me that those who are triggered by Starmer are triggered by Chagos. These players also create a narrative that Starmer has had a chaotic war which they initially compared to Farage and Badenoch's righteous resolution to support Trump and Netanyahu at all costs. I remember a post on here claiming Starmer was "weak, weak, weak" yet when their narrative faltered they went after Starmer by crusing his approval of US defensive action in the Gulf. So to the Telegraph and PB's Telegraph groupies, Starmer was wrong to decline Trump's request to launch the illegal Iran War from Chagos yet now he is wrong to let the USAF defend the Gulf states from Fairford.
Starmer is a poor Prime Minister in lots of ways, so why do the Telegraph etc. have to make up shite?
Except it isn't made up, I linked the report from the EU earlier in the thread.
I presume he means at present, rather than ever. Wikipedia has him as the sixth Jewish person to lead a political party in the UK, and that's not counting Tony Cliff founding the SWP.
Disraeli, Samuel, Howard, Miliband.
Who's the other? Serious question as I'm struggling to work it out.
This tripped me up a few years ago.
Wikipedia (and some other resources) list Sir Jimmy Goldsmith for his stint as leader of the Referendum Party.
He counts because for a while they had one MP.
Elected as a Conservative though, I think? So not really valid.
I certainly wouldn’t count him as a party leader.
He led a party. That party had a huge influence on British politics. What more do you want?
Sir James the first party leader to really call for a referendum on leaving the EU, the Referendum Party got 2.6% of the vote under his leadership in 1997 ahead of UKIP on 0.3%
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
It's true that a major reversal of female emancipation would probably increase the birth rate but I don't think this should be aspired to.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
It's true that a major reversal of female emancipation would probably increase the birth rate but I don't think this should be aspired to.
Personally, I would work on things that make being a mother and a parent easier: you know, like decent childcare, affordable housing, and the like.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
It's true that a major reversal of female emancipation would probably increase the birth rate but I don't think this should be aspired to.
Personally, I would work on things that make being a mother and a parent easier: you know, like decent childcare, affordable housing, and the like.
I have a great idea and we could call it "Surestart".
I presume he means at present, rather than ever. Wikipedia has him as the sixth Jewish person to lead a political party in the UK, and that's not counting Tony Cliff founding the SWP.
Disraeli, Samuel, Howard, Miliband.
Who's the other? Serious question as I'm struggling to work it out.
This tripped me up a few years ago.
Wikipedia (and some other resources) list Sir Jimmy Goldsmith for his stint as leader of the Referendum Party.
He counts because for a while they had one MP.
Elected as a Conservative though, I think? So not really valid.
I certainly wouldn’t count him as a party leader.
He led a party. That party had a huge influence on British politics. What more do you want?
Sir James the first party leader to really call for a referendum on leaving the EU, the Referendum Party got 2.6% of the vote under his leadership in 1997 ahead of UKIP on 0.3%
It’s also where Rupert Lowe got his start.
Didn't he start out in a cartoon strip in the Daily Express?
No this is different. Bardella was ahead of Philippe in the other poll by 52 to 48.
In that case to make your point did you need to repeat Bardella beating all comers? It seems to me you were repeating what you posted yesterday that Bardella is almost invincible. If the point was Bardella's dominance is no longer universal shouldn't you have pointed that out?
Yes come on @williamglenn, you know full well how reposting polls that Pete doesn’t like are a trigger for his issues. Maybe some kind of ration is in order, or just let Mex decide what we can and can’t do, political polling wise
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
My aunt had to give up her job at a bank in 1950s when she got married. Not because her husband wanted her to but because that was the bank rule.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
100 years ago most parents rented their entire life. Both couples earning has pushed up house prices too, if more women were stay at home mothers (or a few fathers stay at home dads) that would be less of an issue.
In the 1970s only 10% went to university, the remaining 90% had children soon after leaving school and their first job. Now 40% go to university but non graduates and working class parents start having children earlier on average
Though the issue isn't about buying a house being ruionously expensive (though it often is)... it's also that renting is only just affordable, because the market rent anywhere useful is "every last penny you have" because if you're a landlord, why wouldn't you?
There are some societal problems that are hard to fix, but building enough houses in the vicintiy of places where people work and want to live isn't one of them.
Have you seen how few houses are being built in large parts of the country - that's often not due to lack of demand, it's just that the prices required to build them makes building them unprofitable.
No this is different. Bardella was ahead of Philippe in the other poll by 52 to 48.
In that case to make your point did you need to repeat Bardella beating all comers? It seems to me you were repeating what you posted yesterday that Bardella is almost invincible. If the point was Bardella's dominance is no longer universal shouldn't you have pointed that out?
The significant thing about this one is that they polled Bardella vs Melenchon which was missing from the other pollster, and it looks like it would be a landslide for Bardella.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
My aunt had to give up her job at a bank in 1950s when she got married. Not because her husband wanted her to but because that was the bank rule.
I'll never forget when I was at university one of my female tutors telling me that in the 1960s her bank refused her a mortgage because she was unmarried and the only way she would get a mortgage whilst she was unmarried was if a male blood relative agreed to be on the mortgage.
If she had been a man she would have been approved for the mortgage.
Some parents have more kids than they want. Mine had two sons and my dad said "that's enough!". But my mother wanted a daughter, so he caved and they had another child. That was me; to my mother's eternal disappointment, a third son. As punishment, for the first two years of my life I was stuck in a pram at the bottom of the garden, just allowed in the house at night.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
My aunt had to give up her job at a bank in 1950s when she got married. Not because her husband wanted her to but because that was the bank rule.
Yes, this was quite common.
My father in law was told to make all the married women redundant first when the business he worked for was making cuts.
Some were allowed to continue working, but once children arrived then that was it.
No this is different. Bardella was ahead of Philippe in the other poll by 52 to 48.
In that case to make your point did you need to repeat Bardella beating all comers? It seems to me you were repeating what you posted yesterday that Bardella is almost invincible. If the point was Bardella's dominance is no longer universal shouldn't you have pointed that out?
Yes come on @williamglenn, you know full well how reposting polls that Pete doesn’t like are a trigger for his issues. Maybe some kind of ration is in order, or just let Mex decide what we can and can’t do, political polling wise
@williamglenn is a very astute commentator, his analysis post the Brexit vote was particularly helpful. It was up there with Alistair Meek's commentary.
William can propose his narrative better without using iffy material like polling on projected candidates. We have been warned about the dangers within.
By the way @Mexicanpete is still not engaging with you, someone must have hacked his account.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
It's true that a major reversal of female emancipation would probably increase the birth rate but I don't think this should be aspired to.
Personally, I would work on things that make being a mother and a parent easier: you know, like decent childcare, affordable housing, and the like.
Yes, stuff like that. If you build it they will come (as it were). I find the more 'direct' type discourse from politicians about raising the birth rate slightly (or sometimes more than slightly) creepy.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
It's true that a major reversal of female emancipation would probably increase the birth rate but I don't think this should be aspired to.
Personally, I would work on things that make being a mother and a parent easier: you know, like decent childcare, affordable housing, and the like.
Utter woke nonsense.
You need to read The Handmaid’s Tale on how to get women making more babies.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
My aunt had to give up her job at a bank in 1950s when she got married. Not because her husband wanted her to but because that was the bank rule.
At my primary school, Miss So-and-so is leaving to get married was accepted as the perfectly normal reason for resigning. Scotland about 1970.
No this is different. Bardella was ahead of Philippe in the other poll by 52 to 48.
In that case to make your point did you need to repeat Bardella beating all comers? It seems to me you were repeating what you posted yesterday that Bardella is almost invincible. If the point was Bardella's dominance is no longer universal shouldn't you have pointed that out?
The significant thing about this one is that they polled Bardella vs Melenchon which was missing from the other pollster, and it looks like it would be a landslide for Bardella.
Haven't we been warned before that this sort of polling technique is inherently inaccurate?
All these jobs that people are remembering their mothers (or grandmothers) giving up upon marriage... they're all middle class jobs: in a bank, a teacher, etc.
Working class women didn't get the same breaks. And there were a lot of working class women.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
My aunt had to give up her job at a bank in 1950s when she got married. Not because her husband wanted her to but because that was the bank rule.
At my primary school, Miss So-and-so is leaving to get married was accepted as the perfectly normal reason for resigning. Scotland about 1970.
That's why men were called sir and women called miss, not Mrs.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
My aunt had to give up her job at a bank in 1950s when she got married. Not because her husband wanted her to but because that was the bank rule.
I'll never forget when I was at university one of my female tutors telling me that in the 1960s her bank refused her a mortgage because she was unmarried and the only way she would get a mortgage whilst she was unmarried was if a male blood relative agreed to be on the mortgage.
If she had been a man she would have been approved for the mortgage.
even in the 80s a married woman would need to get her husbands approval to open a credit card.
All these jobs that people are remembering their mothers (or grandmothers) giving up upon marriage... they're all middle class jobs: in a bank, a teacher, etc.
Working class women didn't get the same breaks. And there were a lot of working class women.
Maybe true, but my point was my aunt was made to give up her job on marriage.
All these jobs that people are remembering their mothers (or grandmothers) giving up upon marriage... they're all middle class jobs: in a bank, a teacher, etc.
Working class women didn't get the same breaks. And there were a lot of working class women.
Working class families often used to live in the same house, though, or at least close by. Granny was more likely to be available.
I wonder what the proportion of childcare done by grandparents is now compared to then? We are much more mobile now.
A section of older people are a danger to the country . Having screwed their grandkids with the Brexit vote they now seem intent on finishing the country off by voting for the Traitor party .
Which is the Traitor party? ..... Just so I know who I should be voting for.
Very funny ! Reform !
If people voted for Brexit but won’t vote for Reform then they’ll avoid internment ! The double whammy of Brexit and Reform passes the threshold otherwise !
A soft open prison though. The Maximum Security facility is reserved for MAGA voters in swing states.
MAGA voters really are on another planet !
Thankfully the UK remains relatively sane for the timebeing . We have neither an obsession with guns or religion or telling women what to do with their bodies .
He has some point there in that women are more fertile in their twenties and early 30s than their late 30s and early 40s though he could have phrased it a bit more diplomatically
I think women know that and don’t need Matt Goodwin to tell them, but maybe he has more experience of discussing fertility with young women than I do.
Rather than telling women to have children earlier, it would be more useful to think about why they rationally choose not to.
Then we might be able to change society so that women can more easily choose to have children at a younger age if they want to.
One thing that does come up when you listen to women is that men of a similar age aren't ready to settle down and have kids. Often a woman will have a long-term relationship in which the man is delaying having children for years.
And, of course, single mothers are a notorious target for the ire of the right, should a woman decide to have a baby when they can't find a man who is ready to do so with them.
So why isn't Matt Goodwin giving a reality check to men about their duty to be a father and have children? Why is it always the fault of women in his eyes?
I'd say a bigger factor is the utter unaffordability of it all. There may be a bit of rose-tinted glass here, but for the twenty- somethings of the 1970s it was possible to buy a house and luve as a family of three or four on one income. Breeding has become almost unaffordable.
Matt Goodwin strikes me as being a piece of work and I don't support his politics. What is however intriguing is the extent to which a sentence he writes, itself the sort of subject millions think and think about and is significant to millions of lives, gives rise to a million expansions, interpretations and distortions, all aimed at saying he is a bad person.
This is what he wrote that has caused all the fuss:
"Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life. We need to also explain to young girls and women the biological reality of this crisis. Many women in Britain are having children much too late in life and they would prefer to have children much earlier on.”
These words put in softer tones, a querying and kindly expression and as an into to a discussion could have been said by Jenni Murray or Emma Barnett on Women's Hour on R4.
Nearly all the crits of Goodwin about this are completely ad hominem. There is a vast amount of more sinister material to attack him with.
I do find it sinister. It's dripping with patriarchal condescension. Is some of this because of who it's coming from rather than the bare words? Yes. But that's integral to understanding something. The message PLUS the medium. Both are relevant. Not (btw) that I'd be a fan of this sort of socio-natal stuff from any politician. Just put forward some policies to encourage men to participate more equally in the rearing of children please. Don't worry about 'explaining' women's fertility cycles to women.
To be blunt, if women don't start having children earlier, we're all going to die out in this country. That's what Goodwin is saying.
It isn't quite that bad, age of mother at first birth is now 32 in the UK but it would be good to reduce that down closer towards 25
Chaps, chaps, I know sex education wasn’t so scientifically comprehensive back in the 80s, but you do surely remember that having a baby involves two people, a man and a woman.
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
100 years ago most women did not have careers, the father did. Even 50 years ago most women gave up their jobs once they became mothers or at most went part time, only top high flying women like Thatcher who could afford nannies continued working full time after motherhood and of course Dennis was a high earning businessman as well.
That's not quite true: women worked until they had children. Unless they were poor (which most people were), in which case they worked even when they had children.
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
My aunt had to give up her job at a bank in 1950s when she got married. Not because her husband wanted her to but because that was the bank rule.
My mum was a manageress in a shoe shop. When she married she had to resign because married women couldn't hold that position. So she became a housewife and had 4 kids. That then fixed her identity for life. Wife and mother. People find ways of being happy, and I hope/think she did, but nostalgia for those old ways is misplaced imo.
Comments
Edit - He also stood for the Referendum Party in Reigate in 1997, he finished fourth, the winner was some chap called Crispin Blunt, whatever happened to him?
I doubt the Telegraph or its readership gives a toss about fish banks or the fate of the silky shark, but I do, and I've long said that the worst part of the Chagos deal is the adverse effect it will have on marine life. Not just in the protected region, but in the whole ocean (which the protected region helps to repopulate), which humanity is sadly plundering into extinction.
Every future edition of the Telegraph, Mail, Express will self compost
Do us all a favour
It's utterly dire video game level stuff.
Bring back the 2025 variant, or the Sport will die and end up like Formula E, Car Park Racing
He just ended up totally confusing everyone and contradicting himself
I certainly wouldn’t count him as a party leader.
We should stop naming stuff after the royals.
Millionaires fear Queen Elizabeth II's memorial will be used as a hiding place for muggers and cause a surge in antisocial behaviour
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15687937/Millionaires-fear-Queen-Elizabeth-memorial-used-muggers-antisocial-behaviour.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline
I pointed out if the only MP you ever had only came via defection and not via the ballot box then it really shouldn't count, it's like losing your virginity to a prostitute.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/most-british-women-wait-until-32-to-have-first-child/
To enable the extra engine to get enough air, the lid opens during take-off and landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm25JeVk_wY
We use the same plane for the same reason. Because we don't have arrestor gear on our carriers, we use a technique called shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL), which is a combination of vertical landing and short landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mubSrcrLpG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0rUkDz_Fg
The man has to bear the terrible burden of having a shag and ejaculating. The woman has the simple task of carrying a baby to term then popping it out and putting her career on hold.
So perhaps making this all about what women should be doing is not the entirety of the story?
https://x.com/clement_mci/status/2037998217212609025
▪️Bardella : 71,5%
▪️Mélenchon : 28,5%
▪️Bardella : 58,5%
▪️Glucksmann : 41,5%
▪️Philippe : 51,5%
▪️Bardella : 48,5%
▪️Bardella : 58%
▪️Retailleau : 42%
Either way it will be a shift right, Philippe has his own centre right party now, Horizons, Bardella is obviously nationalist right, and even Retailleau who does next best after Phillippe v Bardella leads Les Republicains. Whereas Glucksmann is leader of the Socialists in the European Parliament and Melenchon leads the hard left LFI.
The right has not won a French presidential election since Sarkozy won in 2007 19 years ago. Hollande winning in 2012 for the Socialists and Macron winning in 2017 and 2022 for the liberal centre with Socialists and Macron's party also winning the French legislative elections in that time
The Chagos arrangement is a case in point. It would seem to me that those who are triggered by Starmer are triggered by Chagos. These players also create a narrative that Starmer has had a chaotic war which they initially compared to Farage and Badenoch's righteous resolution to support Trump and Netanyahu at all costs. I remember a post on here claiming Starmer was "weak, weak, weak" yet when their narrative faltered they went after Starmer by crusing his approval of US defensive action in the Gulf. So to the Telegraph and PB's Telegraph groupies, Starmer was wrong to decline Trump's request to launch the illegal Iran War from Chagos yet now he is wrong to let the USAF defend the Gulf states from Fairford.
Starmer is a poor Prime Minister in lots of ways, so why do the Telegraph etc. have to make up shite?
The exact opposite of the US system.
it would be EXACTLY like this
https://x.com/webdivonettinho/status/2037857529468768766?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Who do you think were the cooks and cleaners in 1926 Britain? Who do you think worked in the textile factories? Or were secretaries in offices? Who were the nurses? Or the primary school teachers?
https://x.com/MOSSADil/status/2038003887580311676
If she had been a man she would have been approved for the mortgage.
As punishment, for the first two years of my life I was stuck in a pram at the bottom of the garden, just allowed in the house at night.
My father in law was told to make all the married women redundant first when the business he worked for was making cuts.
Some were allowed to continue working, but once children arrived then that was it.
William can propose his narrative better without using iffy material like polling on projected candidates. We have been warned about the dangers within.
By the way @Mexicanpete is still not engaging with you, someone must have hacked his account.
You need to read The Handmaid’s Tale on how to get women making more babies.
Included in another hysterical anti EU article in the DT is Farage so worried about the state of the planet .
Working class women didn't get the same breaks. And there were a lot of working class women.
I wonder what the proportion of childcare done by grandparents is now compared to then? We are much more mobile now.