And that demonstrates why Reform will not be the next government.
The correct response is to deny the story. It's lies. It's fake news. The lamestream media is just making up shit. Everybody stick together and deny everything.
Now, sure, democracy is damaged by such a stunt. But the future is post-truth
I think this demonstrates it better:
Yet labour and the Lib Dem’s want to extend the vote to 16 year olds. So what’s your problem here ? Or is it okay for young people to have the vote if they vote for the right people ?
Um, I don’t agree with lowering the voting age. I think it’s worrying, whichever party they are representing, to give such responsibilities to people who have frankly zero experience in life yet alone running anything.
Would you want an 18 year old managing your pension fund?
If they’re good enough, then yes. But I am drawing my two DB pensions now and the rest is in SIPPs/trackers.
Reform MP James McMurdock suspended after Sunday Times investigation
He is alleged to have borrowed tens of thousands of pounds under the government’s Bounce Back loans scheme during the Covid pandemic in 2020
A Reform MP has suspended himself from the party after a Sunday Times investigation into £70,000 of loans he took out during the pandemic.
James McMurdock, the MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, took the decision after this newspaper approached him with allegations he borrowed tens of thousands of pounds under the government Bounce Back loans scheme in 2020.
He did so through two companies he owned. One was JAM Financial Limited, which had no employees and negligible assets until the pandemic. In 2020 it took out a loan of £50,000, the maximum sum available under the loans scheme available for medium-sized businesses during the pandemic. For a firm to have received such a loan, they would have needed to report turnover of at least £200,000.
In 2021 he transferred his shares in the company to his mother and resigned as director.
The other was Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited, which was dormant until January 31, 2020. Over the following year, it borrowed £20,000, which would have required turnover of £100,000 under the Bounce Back scheme.
Neither company filed accounts or annual corporate filings after the loans — a violation of the Companies Act.
As a result of the failure to submit the information required, both companies were due to be struck off the register, meaning they would have ceased to exist and any remaining assets seized by the Crown.
However, in February 2023, on the same day, the process of suspending both companies was halted after the company regulator received an objection from a third party. It is understood this related to the loans in some way. Both remain active on Companies House.
Separately, Murdock appears to have breached parliamentary rules by failing to list his directorship of Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited on his register of interests. Parliamentary rules state MPs must register “significant, formal unpaid roles such as an unpaid directorship, a directorship of a company not currently trading, or a trusteeship”.
Approached for comment, McMurdock warned “be very, very careful” and said “a technical expert” would be needed for anybody to understand the matters. He repeatedly refused to say why he took out the loans.
Probably a bit of entrepreneurial activity for the average Basildon voter to keep his businesses going in lockdown, if you can find a Times reader in the town.
Won’t stop Reform romping home there
If it was bounce-back loan fraud, and he is convicted, then we may well have a very interesting by election to test your hypothesis.
Even if he was and even if he got a sentence of less than a year and a recall petition or a sentence of over a year and could no longer be an MP I would expect Reform to hold the seat given the national swing
Good afternoon
Reform have peaked and I expect a gradual decline as they are found out for who they are
Who benefits I have no idea but Farage and his diminishing band will not be the next GE winners
Lots of the pro-Farage Party excitement on here ignores the fact that an election might be four years away. A *lot* can happen in that time, both within the UK and in the wider geopolitical world.
If the Farage Party do hold on at this sort of polling level for four years, that would be a massive achievement for them. But is that likely?
Another question is whether they've topped out their polling, or if they have room to grow. How broad a coalition can they make?
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
MIB estimates 300,000 vehicles on the road are uninsured, clearly the law isn't hammering many of them. Unsurprisingly uninsured drivers are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident.
"How fake-will fraudsters stole millions from the dead"
That's quite astounding.
I do wonder if this sort of thing may always have been going on, but the trust-based approach might have been made easier and more widespread by the information being on t'Internet.
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
Interesting suggestion. I'm struggling to see any issue with it. Only thing I can come up with is distinguishing between paying business creditor and personal remittances, the former of which I wouldn't want to see as it becomes a tariff.
Your idea or did you read it somewhere @Luckyguy1983 and if so what were the pros and cons.
Trump's idea.
(He's done it with some success apparently in the US - and we are apparently the third biggest nation in remittances behind the US and Canada)
I change my mind. It is obviously an awful idea 😮
I think there would have to be a threshold so you can make small transfers tax free.
To continue the theme and bring it back to the thread
Strikes me there are TWO existential processes at work in the world, right now. As in: unprecedented challenges for humankind
One I cannot mention, so I won’t
The other is the collapse in fertility. This is having enormous second order effects all around the world, often going unnoticed
eg it can be argued that Trump is a consequence of the baby bust. American demographics are bad. Not as bad as east Asia, but bad. Below replacement and ageing fast
The answer then is immigration - but that means white people very quickly becoming a minority in the USA, and of all the white populations in the world it is Americans who are most likely to fight back against this (violently, if needs be). So we have Trump - a more-or-less openly white supremacist president
Different versions of this dynamic are playing out around the planet
You could fine people for not having children, or tax them more.
So when the Wayne and Waynetta Slobs of the world have children and their children get hurt, killed, live in squalor and everyone shouts about needing an exam to drive a car but not to have kids and it’s a disgrace these feckless fuckers are breeding, do we revisit this penalisation for not having kids?
Are the same people who defend women’s rights to their own body going to force men and women to procreate?
Think it’s probably best to let people decide what’s best for themselves.
By not having children I have offset, with my current and past tax payments , the cost of other children without dipping into the pot myself (and even better, my parents never dipped into the pot for me as they paid for my whole education and healthcare) I also will leave a lower carbon footprint on the world for those who care about such things.
So you need more people like me instead of penalising us.
My children will be working and paying the taxes that will fund your pension.
If there were no kids, you'd have no NHS and no State Pension in your final years.
I promise you, they won’t be.
And I have paid into my tax system vast sums - much more than could cover my government pension if I lived to 150 and needed daily medical care on the state (oh, fully private cover anyway).
And I didn’t say people should stop having kids, I made the point that it’s not bad to have some people who don’t have kids whilst it’s also not right to force people under threat of penalty to have them.
Money is essentially the promise that someone will do some work for you in the future.
If there's no-one there to do the work your money is pointless. If we have a shrinking population then your money will buy a lot less labour in the future then it buys now.
Rachel Reeves has warned cabinet ministers that tax rises in the autumn budget are likely to prove even more challenging than the £40 billion package she imposed in November
The chancellor told cabinet on Tuesday that the decision to abandon welfare reforms meant taxes would have to rise to cover the cost
She said the rises in her first budget, which included a £24 billion increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, were ‘painful’ but were the ‘low-hanging fruit’
Tax rises in the autumn are likely to be smaller than last year’s but she is still expected to have to raise tens of billions of pound. Reeves told ministers that would be a ‘big challenge’ given that she has limited options
Ministers have been told that the spending review will not be reopened, meaning the bulk of any shortfall will have to come from tax rises
Economists have warned that the scale of the hole in the public finances means that she may have to break Labour’s manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. There are also suggestions that she could raid pension savings, which was rejected before the last budget
Allies of Reeves say Labour rebels will have to ‘own’ the tax rises after they killed off welfare reforms”
Labour are so monumentally fucked. There is no coming back from this. Unfortunately, Britain is somewhat fucked, as well
Labour politicians will be proud to own tax rises which damage the private sector and impoverishes private sector workers.
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
Interesting suggestion. I'm struggling to see any issue with it. Only thing I can come up with is distinguishing between paying business creditor and personal remittances, the former of which I wouldn't want to see as it becomes a tariff.
Your idea or did you read it somewhere @Luckyguy1983 and if so what were the pros and cons.
Trump's idea.
(He's done it with some success apparently in the US - and we are apparently the third biggest nation in remittances behind the US and Canada)
It would be a massive boon for Bitcoin. Convert pounds to Bitcoin, send to recipient abroad. Avoid tax.
Yes, of course people would try to find ways to avoid it - as with all taxes.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
Beating up coppers in full view of cctv cameras. Any defence solicitors looking for work?
FPT on the baby bust (and it’s not so irrelevant - Trump is in some ways a reaction to it)
The irony is that the world needs far fewer people. Unless and until we can go to other planets we need to put less pressure on Planet Earth, we need to get our present 9 billion down to 1-2 billion
The problem is how do you get there without societal collapse. Gaia may, in her own way, be doing it for us
Why 1-2 billion specifically as the max? It's actually a pretty big range after all.
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
Um, @Leon, @Malmesbury et al, the "Universe 25"/"Mouse Utopia"/"Calhoun Experiments", whilst not that well known, were known enough for me to discuss it in one of the works Xmas dinners last Christmas, where I fascinated/repelled various luminaries with the story[1], especially when I threw in the phrase "mouse incel" . The alt-right and frankly insane commentator "WhatIfAltHist" - you'd like him - did a YouTube on them
[1] I spend a lot of time in trains and taxis, and two of my jobs mean I have a fund of grotesque stories to entertain them. They can be repurposed for a more genteel audience.
I am not sure that I buy it though. Population Fertility rates for humans are dropping everywhere (albeit from a higher base in Africa etc) whether the country is densely or thinly populated.
Zambia has 20 million people in a country twice the size of France for example, yet the fertility rate is dropping there too. (Incidentally there is some belief amongst demographers that many estimates of current populations are overestimated in Africa).
The drop in fertility rates is pretty universal, in both rich and poor countries, the densely and thinly populated, in ones with welfare states and without, in countries with expensive and those with cheap housing, religious and irreligious alike, from different starting points
I think we have to look at other societal changes, and these would have to be worldwide, and particularly taken up by young women. Smartphones and Internet access spring to mind.
Education, opportunities, birth control and reduced child mortality rates have all played a part in reduced fertility rates.
Hardly surprising as most women don't want to be a baby factory and want to do other things with their lives..
Yes but the later you leave it the harder it is to have children, peak fertility for women is in their twenties and early thirties.
Plus as the population ages the working age population will have to pay more and more tax to pay for the healthcare etc to support them
Fewer babies born now means fewer oldies in 60 years' time.
We are headed to the 421 families seen in China. 4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 child.
For which planet Earth says "Thank fuck..."
The question is whether capitalism works without perpetual growth
Um, yes. People conflate "capitalism" with the rather corrupt lobbyist transnational billionaires at one end and overworked peons at the other end version that we have at the moment. But at heart it's just use of fiat money to mediate transactions, allowing speculative investment to build things and companies, free and perfect markets to buy and sell things, bankruptcy to remove poor performers, courts to oversee contract law, and so on. There are problems with the way we do it and the bits we add on, but basically it works.
One of the key developments that made capitalism possible was access to credit - borrowing money, i.e. capital. Hence capitalism.
Business borrow money to invest on the basis of growing their business to pay back the loan and more besides. If the population is shrinking then it's much harder to make greater sales in the future, it's much harder to borrow to invest, there's generally much less investment. This is very bad for capitalist economies.
Countries like Japan have managed with a shrinking population because the global population is still growing and they can export to growing global markets. One the global population is shrinking, and the growth from developing Africa and adding African consumers to the global market is finished, then there are big problems with Capitalism - though I think the cultural and psychological effects of a shrinking global population might be more problematic.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
MIB estimates 300,000 vehicles on the road are uninsured, clearly the law isn't hammering many of them. Unsurprisingly uninsured drivers are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident.
If one of those motherfuckers hits you then you’re stuffed too. That’s just over 450 per constituency.
Also little fuckers on electrical bikes with their ‘safety balaclavas’
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
And that demonstrates why Reform will not be the next government.
The correct response is to deny the story. It's lies. It's fake news. The lamestream media is just making up shit. Everybody stick together and deny everything.
Now, sure, democracy is damaged by such a stunt. But the future is post-truth
I think this demonstrates it better:
Yet labour and the Lib Dem’s want to extend the vote to 16 year olds. So what’s your problem here ? Or is it okay for young people to have the vote if they vote for the right people ?
Um, I don’t agree with lowering the voting age. I think it’s worrying, whichever party they are representing, to give such responsibilities to people who have frankly zero experience in life yet alone running anything.
Would you want an 18 year old managing your pension fund?
Whilst I don't think all age barriers need to be 100% consistent, personally I feel our general societal position is to treat 17-18 year olds like childre, so don't support lowering the voting age accordingly. But I accept it as a lost cause, as it seems to be both popular and is easy to achieve as a reform.
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
And that demonstrates why Reform will not be the next government.
The correct response is to deny the story. It's lies. It's fake news. The lamestream media is just making up shit. Everybody stick together and deny everything.
Now, sure, democracy is damaged by such a stunt. But the future is post-truth
I think this demonstrates it better:
If they were lib dem or green the Guardian would be running simpering profiles of them.
Many councils would love to have teenagers or early 20s people elected so they can demonstrate engagement with young people. They might not put them into the very highest position, but they'd be keen to make use of them as much as possible.
Reform MP James McMurdock suspended after Sunday Times investigation
He is alleged to have borrowed tens of thousands of pounds under the government’s Bounce Back loans scheme during the Covid pandemic in 2020
A Reform MP has suspended himself from the party after a Sunday Times investigation into £70,000 of loans he took out during the pandemic.
James McMurdock, the MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, took the decision after this newspaper approached him with allegations he borrowed tens of thousands of pounds under the government Bounce Back loans scheme in 2020.
He did so through two companies he owned. One was JAM Financial Limited, which had no employees and negligible assets until the pandemic. In 2020 it took out a loan of £50,000, the maximum sum available under the loans scheme available for medium-sized businesses during the pandemic. For a firm to have received such a loan, they would have needed to report turnover of at least £200,000.
In 2021 he transferred his shares in the company to his mother and resigned as director.
The other was Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited, which was dormant until January 31, 2020. Over the following year, it borrowed £20,000, which would have required turnover of £100,000 under the Bounce Back scheme.
Neither company filed accounts or annual corporate filings after the loans — a violation of the Companies Act.
As a result of the failure to submit the information required, both companies were due to be struck off the register, meaning they would have ceased to exist and any remaining assets seized by the Crown.
However, in February 2023, on the same day, the process of suspending both companies was halted after the company regulator received an objection from a third party. It is understood this related to the loans in some way. Both remain active on Companies House.
Separately, Murdock appears to have breached parliamentary rules by failing to list his directorship of Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited on his register of interests. Parliamentary rules state MPs must register “significant, formal unpaid roles such as an unpaid directorship, a directorship of a company not currently trading, or a trusteeship”.
Approached for comment, McMurdock warned “be very, very careful” and said “a technical expert” would be needed for anybody to understand the matters. He repeatedly refused to say why he took out the loans.
If true his career is surely over. Not so much the corruption but the hypocrisy. The Farage brigade were very much of the mantra that government intervention during Covid was communism by the back door.
He only took the loans to expose the corruption at the heart of government.
LOL .. As well as a lot of Essex entrepreneurs were doing at the time. None of the ones I know have paid back or been contacted about repayment.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
I’m right about everything. The only way we stop this is with actual physical punishment
Arrest, convict, taser them every day for a week. They won’t do it again
Glasgow sex attack delivery driver was using someone else’s Deliveroo account when he assaulted woman
Muhammad Faizan Khan subjected JJ - who asked to remain anonymous - to a sickening sexual attack which left her bleeding, and which she believes was a factor in a pregnancy loss several days later. He was found guilty in December 2024 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, sentenced to 12 months in prison and placed on the sex offenders register in February this year.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Glasgow sex attack delivery driver was using someone else’s Deliveroo account when he assaulted woman
Muhammad Faizan Khan subjected JJ - who asked to remain anonymous - to a sickening sexual attack which left her bleeding, and which she believes was a factor in a pregnancy loss several days later. He was found guilty in December 2024 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, sentenced to 12 months in prison and placed on the sex offenders register in February this year.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
I’m right about everything. The only way we stop this is with actual physical punishment
Arrest, convict, taser them every day for a week. They won’t do it again
It won’t happen.
We will keep battering the shit out of normally law abiding people who make a minor slip, like,forgetting to insure their car, by 24 hours, and we will let this trash carry on regardless with no come back.
So you get people like this getting criminal records and scum who just flick two fingers at authority nothing.
Glasgow sex attack delivery driver was using someone else’s Deliveroo account when he assaulted woman
Muhammad Faizan Khan subjected JJ - who asked to remain anonymous - to a sickening sexual attack which left her bleeding, and which she believes was a factor in a pregnancy loss several days later. He was found guilty in December 2024 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, sentenced to 12 months in prison and placed on the sex offenders register in February this year.
12 months??
+1 - @DavidL got to say this feels an incredibly low sentence..
And yes Deliveroo, JustEat and Uber Eats need to do a lot more to continually check that the person doing the work is the person they've allowed to do so. Problem is the only way they get away with using self employed workers is due to substitution of workers being allowed hence this is on many levels intentional
Glasgow sex attack delivery driver was using someone else’s Deliveroo account when he assaulted woman
Muhammad Faizan Khan subjected JJ - who asked to remain anonymous - to a sickening sexual attack which left her bleeding, and which she believes was a factor in a pregnancy loss several days later. He was found guilty in December 2024 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, sentenced to 12 months in prison and placed on the sex offenders register in February this year.
12 months??
What did Lucy Connolly get for her tweet? 32 months?
This guy commits a brutal sexual assault causing a miscarriage. 12 months
Glasgow sex attack delivery driver was using someone else’s Deliveroo account when he assaulted woman
Muhammad Faizan Khan subjected JJ - who asked to remain anonymous - to a sickening sexual attack which left her bleeding, and which she believes was a factor in a pregnancy loss several days later. He was found guilty in December 2024 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, sentenced to 12 months in prison and placed on the sex offenders register in February this year.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
what exactly are you taxing there? They have already been taxed on the money they earnt to send home...
The suggestion is that if you want to send money to someone in another country, then you will need to pay a 10% tax.
Now: this raises many questions. Like, if I transfer money from my UK bank account to my US one, is that liable for such a charge?
Isn't that capital controls under a new name...
It's clearer and clearer that Trump lives in the 1970s / early 80s and doesn't understand how much the world has moved on and why that's the case..
Surely with crypto and so on it's fairly easy to get round these days anyway?
Probably. But does Trump realise that?
Given how much he's made from dodgy crypto "scams" I suspect he does. Don't be surprised to see Trump coin 2 being the preferred inter country transfer mechanism..
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
To continue the theme and bring it back to the thread
Strikes me there are TWO existential processes at work in the world, right now. As in: unprecedented challenges for humankind
One I cannot mention, so I won’t
The other is the collapse in fertility. This is having enormous second order effects all around the world, often going unnoticed
eg it can be argued that Trump is a consequence of the baby bust. American demographics are bad. Not as bad as east Asia, but bad. Below replacement and ageing fast
The answer then is immigration - but that means white people very quickly becoming a minority in the USA, and of all the white populations in the world it is Americans who are most likely to fight back against this (violently, if needs be). So we have Trump - a more-or-less openly white supremacist president
Different versions of this dynamic are playing out around the planet
You could fine people for not having children, or tax them more.
So when the Wayne and Waynetta Slobs of the world have children and their children get hurt, killed, live in squalor and everyone shouts about needing an exam to drive a car but not to have kids and it’s a disgrace these feckless fuckers are breeding, do we revisit this penalisation for not having kids?
Are the same people who defend women’s rights to their own body going to force men and women to procreate?
Think it’s probably best to let people decide what’s best for themselves.
By not having children I have offset, with my current and past tax payments , the cost of other children without dipping into the pot myself (and even better, my parents never dipped into the pot for me as they paid for my whole education and healthcare) I also will leave a lower carbon footprint on the world for those who care about such things.
So you need more people like me instead of penalising us.
No we don’t as you don’t reproduce and cost the taxpayer lots as you age with no workers produced for the next generation.
Of course evangelicals and the Vatican and many Muslims are as anti abortion as they are pro reproduction
No.
They are anti-women.
No they just take a very traditional view of gender roles
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
This is similar to the point I was making the other day.
Genuine disabled have major hurdles in their way to claim PIP , yet fraudsters seem to get away with it.
We don't need more laws or rules, but we do need better enforcement of existing rules, and significant penalties for both tax and benefit fraudsters.
It seems that there's not much enthusiasm for that hard grind.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
DUP Leader Gavin Robinson said: “The Belfast Agreement sought to address issues of identity and whilst people living in Northern Ireland could avail of an Irish passport, there was no reciprocal arrangement in the other direction. Those born in the Republic of Ireland after 1948 needed to undertake a lengthy and costly process of applying to the Home Office for British citizenship."
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
DUP Leader Gavin Robinson said: “The Belfast Agreement sought to address issues of identity and whilst people living in Northern Ireland could avail of an Irish passport, there was no reciprocal arrangement in the other direction. Those born in the Republic of Ireland after 1948 needed to undertake a lengthy and costly process of applying to the Home Office for British citizenship."
Yes, I wonder if the Home Office has smuggled through something unwanted while merely appearing to be nice to the Ulster Prods
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
"How fake-will fraudsters stole millions from the dead"
That's quite astounding.
I do wonder if this sort of thing may always have been going on, but the trust-based approach might have been made easier and more widespread by the information being on t'Internet.
This particular crime depends on a couple of things being the case:
1) People dying without a will who have relatives who stand to inherit on intestacy but who have no significant contact with that relative of any sort - eg they are not even in touch enough to know they have died.
2) Massive negligence by a public body responsible for the proper administration of the law.
My sympathies with most of the people in (1) are fairly limited. Legacy as casino for the neglectful is not a cheery subject or a happy thought.
(2) Exposes the possibility of a scandal almost unimaginable in a properly functioning civil order. I would expect the Taliban to run it better.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
I’m right about everything. The only way we stop this is with actual physical punishment
Arrest, convict, taser them every day for a week. They won’t do it again
First party to suggest bringing back the stocks wins election?
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
This is similar to the point I was making the other day.
Genuine disabled have major hurdles in their way to claim PIP , yet fraudsters seem to get away with it.
We don't need more laws or rules, but we do need better enforcement of existing rules, and significant penalties for both tax and benefit fraudsters.
It seems that there's not much enthusiasm for that hard grind.
Not that it is necessarily the cause here, but it is akin to the common politician issue of looking to create new offences or new departments, as it feels like more of an achievement thatn making use of powers or officials you already have.
Most of their victims never want to admit (to themselves, let alone anyone else) that they did something stupid/greedy/dishonest.
The thing that's a bit different here is that the conman isn't doing a runner, because he doesn't need to.
If you've got intensely invested in somebody, as with these Magas, it's difficult to cut loose because it means admitting you've been a fool. But what I'd hope is that whilst in public they keep the faith there's a growing proportion who privately are starting to think, "hmm, not so sure about this guy." Emphasis on 'hope' there. I'm not particularly bullish on the point.
I'm vaguely aware, via friend of friend (so take that what you will) that some Americans are indeed thinking as you've typed.
Pro-Trump pre-election, but when tariffs where announced and the 'we are annexing Canada' wasn't revealed to be a joke, they have stopped singing his praises but instead deflect when he's mentioned.
But as noted, if 2026 and 2028 aren't as free and fair as they should be (and American democratic record is pretty shit anyway; there is reason 'Gerrymander' is an American word) then potentially millions of voters flipping might not matter if their votes are no longer counted.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
It is socially acceptable, and has been for quite a long time. There are small signs that it may be becoming slightly less so.
The Finer Report of 1974 was a key mover in the social change.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Money is essentially the promise that someone will do some work for you in the future.
If there's no-one there to do the work your money is pointless. If we have a shrinking population then your money will buy a lot less labour in the future then it buys now.
People always forget this. It's only worth something because we all agree its worth something.
Zac Hobson had all the money in the world one day.... and it was totally worthless to him.
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
what exactly are you taxing there? They have already been taxed on the money they earnt to send home...
The suggestion is that if you want to send money to someone in another country, then you will need to pay a 10% tax.
Now: this raises many questions. Like, if I transfer money from my UK bank account to my US one, is that liable for such a charge?
Isn't that capital controls under a new name...
It's clearer and clearer that Trump lives in the 1970s / early 80s and doesn't understand how much the world has moved on and why that's the case..
Surely with crypto and so on it's fairly easy to get round these days anyway?
Probably. But does Trump realise that?
I believe he used to be negative on crypto until he realised how easy it was to grift with it. So he probably has people around him who know at least, many crypto bros backed him to get the authorities to back off.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
To continue the theme and bring it back to the thread
Strikes me there are TWO existential processes at work in the world, right now. As in: unprecedented challenges for humankind
One I cannot mention, so I won’t
The other is the collapse in fertility. This is having enormous second order effects all around the world, often going unnoticed
eg it can be argued that Trump is a consequence of the baby bust. American demographics are bad. Not as bad as east Asia, but bad. Below replacement and ageing fast
The answer then is immigration - but that means white people very quickly becoming a minority in the USA, and of all the white populations in the world it is Americans who are most likely to fight back against this (violently, if needs be). So we have Trump - a more-or-less openly white supremacist president
Different versions of this dynamic are playing out around the planet
You could fine people for not having children, or tax them more.
So when the Wayne and Waynetta Slobs of the world have children and their children get hurt, killed, live in squalor and everyone shouts about needing an exam to drive a car but not to have kids and it’s a disgrace these feckless fuckers are breeding, do we revisit this penalisation for not having kids?
Are the same people who defend women’s rights to their own body going to force men and women to procreate?
Think it’s probably best to let people decide what’s best for themselves.
By not having children I have offset, with my current and past tax payments , the cost of other children without dipping into the pot myself (and even better, my parents never dipped into the pot for me as they paid for my whole education and healthcare) I also will leave a lower carbon footprint on the world for those who care about such things.
So you need more people like me instead of penalising us.
No we don’t as you don’t reproduce and cost the taxpayer lots as you age with no workers produced for the next generation.
Of course evangelicals and the Vatican and many Muslims are as anti abortion as they are pro reproduction
No.
They are anti-women.
No they just take a very traditional view of gender roles
Which, in an amazing coincidence, also happen to be anti-women.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Because they would lose loads of seats in London and the south.
Because it’s geographically “unfair”.
Because it would affect loads of Labour politicians and advisors.
Because a lot of people who own a legacy home that valued at £2m don’t have a lot of liquidity for paying extra taxes so they have to sell which could crash the market.
Why £2million and not £1million, is your house conveniently worth under £2million?
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Starmer is opposed and will block it apparently
To be fair his house is probably worth more than £2m
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Because so many policy makers and senior politicians live in one? And rather fewer of them are small family farmers or run family owned small firms or employ lots of people in private enterprise, so they tax them instead?
A question to which many would say yes but not take action to support? Too risky.
I've noticed a few people in the UK occasionally use the term uniparty, which is such obvious american cringe, like using BIPOC.
BIPOC is cringe. Uniparty certainly isn’t: it successfully describes the UK government from 1997-2024 which, Brexit aside, pursued exactly the same liberal leftish woke multicultural pro migration policies, just with different tweaks to tax and spend - no matter which party was in power
Are we not ultimately paying the price for thinking that the GFC bailouts could be 'free' when the only way to pay for it was through substantial increases in basic rate of tax, however politically unpalatable that might be.
A question to which many would say yes but not take action to support? Too risky.
I've noticed a few people in the UK occasionally use the term uniparty, which is such obvious american cringe, like using BIPOC.
BIPOC is cringe. Uniparty certainly isn’t: it successfully describes the UK government from 1997-2024 which, Brexit aside, pursued exactly the same liberal leftish woke multicultural pro migration policies, just with different tweaks to tax and spend - no matter which party was in power
This has led us to our current disaster
Aren’t Reform committing to much of the same economically?
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
We'd have to exempt corporate remittances or no foreigner would ever invest here again, which for a country with a huge financial sector and a current account deficit is the opposite of what we'd need.
So all those person remittances suddenly become corporate ones - you get companies set up for exactly that purpose.
Also it's perfectly legal to take cash up to £9k out of the country, so people would just use mules, at greater expense but it'd be worth it, for all but trivial transfers.
So devastates our international reputation and financial sector and raises nothing.
It's a terrible idea - a parody of soft socialism - simultaneously meddling, damaging and ineffective. So, yes, I can see Reeves adopting it. Then U-turning a few months later having done lots of damage and shown yet again that she's completely out of her depth..
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
To continue the theme and bring it back to the thread
Strikes me there are TWO existential processes at work in the world, right now. As in: unprecedented challenges for humankind
One I cannot mention, so I won’t
The other is the collapse in fertility. This is having enormous second order effects all around the world, often going unnoticed
eg it can be argued that Trump is a consequence of the baby bust. American demographics are bad. Not as bad as east Asia, but bad. Below replacement and ageing fast
The answer then is immigration - but that means white people very quickly becoming a minority in the USA, and of all the white populations in the world it is Americans who are most likely to fight back against this (violently, if needs be). So we have Trump - a more-or-less openly white supremacist president
Different versions of this dynamic are playing out around the planet
You could fine people for not having children, or tax them more.
So when the Wayne and Waynetta Slobs of the world have children and their children get hurt, killed, live in squalor and everyone shouts about needing an exam to drive a car but not to have kids and it’s a disgrace these feckless fuckers are breeding, do we revisit this penalisation for not having kids?
Are the same people who defend women’s rights to their own body going to force men and women to procreate?
Think it’s probably best to let people decide what’s best for themselves.
By not having children I have offset, with my current and past tax payments , the cost of other children without dipping into the pot myself (and even better, my parents never dipped into the pot for me as they paid for my whole education and healthcare) I also will leave a lower carbon footprint on the world for those who care about such things.
So you need more people like me instead of penalising us.
No we don’t as you don’t reproduce and cost the taxpayer lots as you age with no workers produced for the next generation.
Of course evangelicals and the Vatican and many Muslims are as anti abortion as they are pro reproduction
No.
They are anti-women.
No they just take a very traditional view of gender roles
Which, in an amazing coincidence, also happen to be anti-women.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Free to choose partners yes, not free to reject every male available as they don't suit their snooty standards
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Free to choose partners yes, not free to reject every male available as they don't suit their snooty standards
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Free to choose partners yes, not free to reject every male available as they don't suit their snooty standards
I’m getting strong vibes that someone hurt you. Let her go.
Rachel may as well extend the freeze on tax thresholds until 2050 so that we would get some long term certainty on this 😈
I wonder if Tiny Tears from Accounts has considered just closing down the country. We’re out of money. Everything is falling apart. Sometimes you just have to accept failure - at this point, keeping Britain open is sunk cost fallacy, and everyone is miserable
Alternatively: announce Britain is finally shutting down for good. Then have six months when we flog off all the good stuff - the art, the Crown Jewels, the nice castles, Cambridge - then divvy up the proceeds between all 68m Brits and with that we can all buy somewhere decent abroad. A little beachside place in Thailand, maybe
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Free to choose partners yes, not free to reject every male available as they don't suit their snooty standards
I’m getting strong vibes that someone hurt you. Let her go.
No I am married but much of the problem is from dating apps, for most of history you only found your partner in your local village or town and picked the best available option from there. Now dating apps mean you can pick from all over the world but the most eligible men are small in number and most women won't get them
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Free to choose partners yes, not free to reject every male available as they don't suit their snooty standards
I’m getting strong vibes that someone hurt you. Let her go.
No I am married but much of the problem is from dating apps, for most of history you only found your partner in your local village or town and picked the best available option from there. Now dating apps mean you can pick from all over the world but the most eligible men are small in number and most women won't get them
You act like dating apps are the only way women are choosing men these days. The graduate career women you are obsessed with are still meeting guys the same way as ever, at work, at corporate events, drinks parties, socials, charity balls. I got asked out for a drink by someone I met in Waitrose for gods sake.
Apps have just added the chance of extra choice outside of the circles people normally inhabit.
You have very successful women who want equally successful men, very successful women who just want a man who makes them feel secure, unsuccessful women who want wealthy successful men, unsuccessful women who want a guy they fancy, moderate men and women who just want someone to hold and care for them.
I get that you are married but it seems like you have very little contact with the world of dating because people still meet in bars and parties and work and fall in love because chemistry, sexual desire, humour or attraction to wealth or intelligence.
You are falling for the incel line that it’s women’s’ fault and they should be happy with what they get.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Just the women should? Did you just marry any old girl or did you wait to find someone you fancied and felt you could make a life partnership with? I think a lot of men should be very glad that a lot of women are less fussy about who they are willing to date and marry.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
Being a good father has sod all to do with how well you dress.
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
This ignorance is why these women have rejected you. They can work when and how the fuck they like without your approval and funnily enough, a lot of women, far more successful than you, would like not to hand over the upbringing of their children to a nanny, and have to make that decision not out of pure choice but because biology means they are the only party in the relationship who can gestate children.
I am married as I said, not to a liberal self absorbed career above all else woman however.
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You are dangerously close to saying that men are entitled to a place in a woman’s life. If a woman wants children she will need to find a man who is available, sure, but it is unclear what your position is on women who would rather not have children if they can’t find a man they don’t deem to be good enough.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Free to choose partners yes, not free to reject every male available as they don't suit their snooty standards
I’m getting strong vibes that someone hurt you. Let her go.
Getting strong vibes that HYUFD has an incel streak a mile wide
You could also ban contraception and abortion. Romania managed to grow its population this way, albeit with orphanages.
You probably have to row back a fair way on women's rights and heavily reward it socially and in the tax system to boost population.
Women themselves, on average, want to have more children. You don't have to fight them to force them to do so. You just need to make it easier for them.
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
Or women, especially graduate career women, could be less fussy in the men they are willing to date and marry
Why should they? Surely that is entirely up to them?
No it isn't, snobbishly dismissing most of the male population as not worth their time just leads to incels and all the trouble that causes.
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
What do you mean “no it isn’t”? Are you saying that the choice of partners isn’t or shouldn’t be up to women?
I am saying I believe in the traditional family more than 1 parent families of sperm donors and children with fathers as well as mothers.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
It doesn’t matter what marriage is supposed to be. Either women are free to choose their partners based on whatever criteria they like or they aren’t. If women would rather not have kids if they don’t find a good enough life partner, so what?
Free to choose partners yes, not free to reject every male available as they don't suit their snooty standards
I’m getting strong vibes that someone hurt you. Let her go.
No I am married but much of the problem is from dating apps, for most of history you only found your partner in your local village or town and picked the best available option from there. Now dating apps mean you can pick from all over the world but the most eligible men are small in number and most women won't get them
You spend too much time online. You won’t find a bit on the side, there.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Given that we last had a council tax valuation in England in 1991 - are we really going to be able to value all houses in a short period of time, and what's more won't the noise from those who pay more outweigh those who pay less council tax as a result?
A proper property tax system based on up to date valuations with higher tiers sounds good, but there are reasons why no government has poked that in well over three decades.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
I’m right about everything. The only way we stop this is with actual physical punishment
Arrest, convict, taser them every day for a week. They won’t do it again
Is that why the pain of childbirth deters women from sex? That would explain the population crisis discussed earlier.
Reeves could tax overseas remittances. Up to date information seems difficult to come by, but a Guardian blog from 2016 estimates the following:
According to the estimates, remittances from the UK, including unrecorded transfers through formal and informal channels, could be worth up to $23bn – including $3.9bn to India, $3.8bn to Nigeria, and more than $1.2bn to Poland. This would make the UK the third-largest source of remittances, after the US and Canada.
We'd have to exempt corporate remittances or no foreigner would ever invest here again, which for a country with a huge financial sector and a current account deficit is the opposite of what we'd need.
So all those person remittances suddenly become corporate ones - you get companies set up for exactly that purpose.
Also it's perfectly legal to take cash up to £9k out of the country, so people would just use mules, at greater expense but it'd be worth it, for all but trivial transfers.
So devastates our international reputation and financial sector and raises nothing.
It's a terrible idea - a parody of soft socialism - simultaneously meddling, damaging and ineffective. So, yes, I can see Reeves adopting it. Then U-turning a few months later having done lots of damage and shown yet again that she's completely out of her depth..
Nobody is going to put cash in jiffy bags and get on a plane to Bangalore every month - don't be absurd. All tax policy must take into account the likelihood of avoidance and circumvention, and be set an appropriate rate. This tax would be no different. 'Devastates our financial sector' - piss off.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Starmer is opposed and will block it apparently
To be fair his house is probably worth more than £2m
And so is his pension fund and it has a law to protect it from any tax rises.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Starmer is opposed and will block it apparently
To be fair his house is probably worth more than £2m
And so is his pension fund and it has a law to protect it from any tax rises.
I understand your point but isn’t that standard for former heads of the CPS? I assume it’s a trade off for a lower salary for the day to day but I don’t know.
Meanwhile, this is Hegra fortress (D4S), carved out of the mountain after Norway secured its independence from Sweden, to block the valley leading to Sweden from any future Swedish attack. Despite having been deactivated by 1940, a detachment of Norwegians holed up there after the Germans invaded, and were among the last in the south to surrender.
Our legal system lets these scum get away with it and yet if you make a minor transgression. Miss insuring or SORNing your car by a day, make an error on your TV license. Buy a train ticket and, accidentally, it’s the wrong one then via the SJP then the law will hammer you.
I’m right about everything. The only way we stop this is with actual physical punishment
Arrest, convict, taser them every day for a week. They won’t do it again
Stocks and pillory.
Place them on Tower Hill and outside Clifford's Tower and they would be a huge tourist attraction.
I met my girlfriend on Hinge and I am certainly not a Love Island adonis.
Yep, both my boys too met their partners on Hinge, together 8 and 2 years now.
Though dating Apps have a conflict of interest. 1 successful match loses 2 customers!
The thing about dating Apps is that actually, they are like the village that HYuFD harks back too - people don’t set their search to global if they actually want to meet someone, they set it to within a sensible radius of where it’s easy, if they like each other, to meet in person, go on dates, make a life together.
All it really does is speed up the searching process.
Comments
If the Farage Party do hold on at this sort of polling level for four years, that would be a massive achievement for them. But is that likely?
Another question is whether they've topped out their polling, or if they have room to grow. How broad a coalition can they make?
One option is to make it socially acceptable for women to have children without a long-term partner. Waiting for Mr Right to come along (who themself is ready to be a parent) seems to be one of the bigger impediments. And then, of course, you need to have the support to ensure that those children grown up to be well-adjusted without a Dad.
If only an AI cloned Dan Maskell could substitute Andrew Castle it could become so again
I do wonder if this sort of thing may always have been going on, but the trust-based approach might have been made easier and more widespread by the information being on t'Internet.
If there's no-one there to do the work your money is pointless. If we have a shrinking population then your money will buy a lot less labour in the future then it buys now.
Now: this raises many questions. Like, if I transfer money from my UK bank account to my US one, is that liable for such a charge?
Business borrow money to invest on the basis of growing their business to pay back the loan and more besides. If the population is shrinking then it's much harder to make greater sales in the future, it's much harder to borrow to invest, there's generally much less investment. This is very bad for capitalist economies.
Countries like Japan have managed with a shrinking population because the global population is still growing and they can export to growing global markets. One the global population is shrinking, and the growth from developing Africa and adding African consumers to the global market is finished, then there are big problems with Capitalism - though I think the cultural and psychological effects of a shrinking global population might be more problematic.
Also little fuckers on electrical bikes with their ‘safety balaclavas’
It's clearer and clearer that Trump lives in the 1970s / early 80s and doesn't understand how much the world has moved on and why that's the case..
https://www.ft.com/content/c0e661cc-55db-4e2a-b17b-a656e0cf6c14
BCG modelled plan to ‘relocate’ Palestinians from Gaza
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78n1dxl8wwo
Arrest, convict, taser them every day for a week. They won’t do it again
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-sex-attack-delivery-driver-31305185
Glasgow sex attack delivery driver was using someone else’s Deliveroo account when he assaulted woman
Muhammad Faizan Khan subjected JJ - who asked to remain anonymous - to a sickening sexual attack which left her bleeding, and which she believes was a factor in a pregnancy loss several days later. He was found guilty in December 2024 at Glasgow Sheriff Court, sentenced to 12 months in prison and placed on the sex offenders register in February this year.
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
https://x.com/peterrhague/status/1941383524386586713?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
We will keep battering the shit out of normally law abiding people who make a minor slip, like,forgetting to insure their car, by 24 hours, and we will let this trash carry on regardless with no come back.
So you get people like this getting criminal records and scum who just flick two fingers at authority nothing.
This is the Tories legacy.
Fuck the Tories. It infuriates me
https://x.com/kirkkorner/status/1938888259192463542?s=61
And yes Deliveroo, JustEat and Uber Eats need to do a lot more to continually check that the person doing the work is the person they've allowed to do so. Problem is the only way they get away with using self employed workers is due to substitution of workers being allowed hence this is on many levels intentional
This guy commits a brutal sexual assault causing a miscarriage. 12 months
We are doomed
People keep saying “it makes no difference”, which I understand (because of the CTA), but in that case why make this change?
Next Norway.
Genuine disabled have major hurdles in their way to claim PIP , yet fraudsters seem to get away with it.
We don't need more laws or rules, but we do need better enforcement of existing rules, and significant penalties for both tax and benefit fraudsters.
It seems that there's not much enthusiasm for that hard grind.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/dup-welcomes-new-rules-making-it-easier-for-irish-people-to-take-up-uk-citizenship-5208070
DUP Leader Gavin Robinson said: “The Belfast Agreement sought to address issues of identity and whilst people living in Northern Ireland could avail of an Irish passport, there was no reciprocal arrangement in the other direction. Those born in the Republic of Ireland after 1948 needed to undertake a lengthy and costly process of applying to the Home Office for British citizenship."
And even without a partner they would still need a sperm donor but children are best brought up by 2 parents
1) People dying without a will who have relatives who stand to inherit on intestacy but who have no significant contact with that relative of any sort - eg they are not even in touch enough to know they have died.
2) Massive negligence by a public body responsible for the proper administration of the law.
My sympathies with most of the people in (1) are fairly limited. Legacy as casino for the neglectful is not a cheery subject or a happy thought.
(2) Exposes the possibility of a scandal almost unimaginable in a properly functioning civil order. I would expect the Taliban to run it better.
Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!
Should we create the America Party?'
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941119099532378580
Pro-Trump pre-election, but when tariffs where announced and the 'we are annexing Canada' wasn't revealed to be a joke, they have stopped singing his praises but instead deflect when he's mentioned.
But as noted, if 2026 and 2028 aren't as free and fair as they should be (and American democratic record is pretty shit anyway; there is reason 'Gerrymander' is an American word) then potentially millions of voters flipping might not matter if their votes are no longer counted.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not perfection of an Adonis like husband with 140 IQ and huge bank balance and perfect social graces at all times
The Finer Report of 1974 was a key mover in the social change.
Men need to up their game for starters - have you noticed how terribly British men dress, especially in the summer? Like overgrown children.
Maybe the guys need to stop fetishising the Love Island look and go for brains and then they might talk to the graduate career women who don’t look the part and both find a match.
Graduate career women know that having children will, in most cases, kibosh their career. Sure there are laws and regulations to stop it but frankly they have a choice of banging out a family earlier then going back to their career and building from there or stopping when they have career momentum and having the children.
I know some who have become board level at banks and law firms but they are the exceptions.
Many will understandably choose their career - would you give up your career to raise your children instead of your wife?
I've noticed a few people in the UK occasionally use the term uniparty, which is such obvious american cringe, like using BIPOC.
Zac Hobson had all the money in the world one day.... and it was totally worthless to him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Earth_(film)
Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
Because it’s geographically “unfair”.
Because it would affect loads of Labour politicians and advisors.
Because a lot of people who own a legacy home that valued at £2m don’t have a lot of liquidity for paying extra taxes so they have to sell which could crash the market.
Why £2million and not £1million, is your house conveniently worth under £2million?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/04/starmer-poised-block-wealth-taxes/
This has led us to our current disaster
We'd have to exempt corporate remittances or no foreigner would ever invest here again, which for a country with a huge financial sector and a current account deficit is the opposite of what we'd need.
So all those person remittances suddenly become corporate ones - you get companies set up for exactly that purpose.
Also it's perfectly legal to take cash up to £9k out of the country, so people would just use mules, at greater expense but it'd be worth it, for all but trivial transfers.
So devastates our international reputation and financial sector and raises nothing.
It's a terrible idea - a parody of soft socialism - simultaneously meddling, damaging and ineffective. So, yes, I can see Reeves adopting it. Then U-turning a few months later having done lots of damage and shown yet again that she's completely out of her depth..
Throughout history most women never had a career at all, their primary role was being home makers and raising children.
They can work part time in the early years when their children are young and then shift back to full time as they start school.
If they are rich enough to be at board level at banks and law firms they are rich enough to get nannies too
Alternatively: announce Britain is finally shutting down for good. Then have six months when we flog off all the good stuff - the art, the Crown Jewels, the nice castles, Cambridge - then divvy up the proceeds between all 68m Brits and with that we can all buy somewhere decent abroad. A little beachside place in Thailand, maybe
Job done
Apps have just added the chance of extra choice outside of the circles people normally inhabit.
You have very successful women who want equally successful men, very successful women who just want a man who makes them feel secure, unsuccessful women who want wealthy successful men, unsuccessful women who want a guy they fancy, moderate men and women who just want someone to hold and care for them.
I get that you are married but it seems like you have very little contact with the world of dating because people still meet in bars and parties and work and fall in love because chemistry, sexual desire, humour or attraction to wealth or intelligence.
You are falling for the incel line that it’s women’s’ fault and they should be happy with what they get.
https://x.com/amazlngnature/status/1941168038675423503?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I don't give a shit how successful women are career wise at the end of the day if they want children they should find a man and stick to them and yes that may well mean giving up working full time when their children are young and if they don't want a nanny.
Why do you think many young men are surging to the far right and populist right across the western world in elections while young women vote still mainly for 'progressive' parties?
It is because in part many young men are fed up of traditional gender roles being discarded and some women putting their careers first so much they refuse to even consider a role for most men in their lives and as husbands and fathers
You still haven’t explained what you meant by “not entitled to reject”.
A proper property tax system based on up to date valuations with higher tiers sounds good, but there are reasons why no government has poked that in well over three decades.
Though dating Apps have a conflict of interest. 1 successful match loses 2 customers!
My sunset time tonight, 2348.
Place them on Tower Hill and outside Clifford's Tower and they would be a huge tourist attraction.
All it really does is speed up the searching process.