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”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
Have you not noticed that that world has gone, and the new one is rather different? Most of the changes brought about under, and often by, conservative governments.
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.
Only in a secular liberal worldview
So... the hijab and burqa are a-okay in your mind as in the worldview of *some* Muslims, it is a necessity for women to wear them? Or is your religious bigotry constrained to just the high church?
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
🤦♂️
You don't get Supply and Demand at all do you?
Pick up an economics textbook. It doesn't matter whether a house is a new build or existing stock, they're all affected by the same market conditions.
New builds aren't magically better, though they are better in many ways due to improving standards on stuff like insulation, and worse in other ways like typically smaller.
What they are though, is extra supply. We need supply to rise by more than demand to lower prices and that would affect all houses, both new and old.
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.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
So do we, stamp duty
That's not a land tax, its a tax on sales. Completely different.
Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with an annual land tax, like capitalist America has.
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.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
It's fine by me but would eradicate Labour in London and the south
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
I think Bart is fixated on increasing supply because markets are based on supply and demand - and the only way to increase supply is to build more.
Now the other way to change the market would be to restrict demand but banks are willing to lend as much as they think people can afford to pay - so I'm not sure how you would go about that nowadays...
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
I am not an atheist and have been quite rude to some muslims that are devout when I lived in their midst
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
"Do you think it's Allah's will that Israel exists?"
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well I don't yet issue Fatwas of death on those who disrespect my values and faith that is true
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
You do realise you are equating HYUFD with a devout Muslim (presumably. from the conversation, a misogynistic one) ?
THROW OUT THE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS !!!!!! SEND THEM BACK TO WHERE THEIR GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT(*) GRANDPARENTS CAME FROM WHENEVER THEY CAME HERE!!!!!
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
I think Bart is fixated on increasing supply because markets are based on supply and demand - and the only way to increase supply is to build more.
Now the other way to change the market would be to restrict demand but banks are willing to lend as much as they think people can afford to pay - so I'm not sure how you would go about that nowadays...
It's not true that building is the only way to increase supply because people respond to price signals by changing the way they use property. If interest rates went up to 10%, you'd suddenly see a big increase in the supply of property on the market.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well I don't yet issue Fatwas of death on those who disrespect my values and faith that is true
Which is probably a great disappointment to you as I am pretty sure you would love to
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
I think Bart is fixated on increasing supply because markets are based on supply and demand - and the only way to increase supply is to build more.
Now the other way to change the market would be to restrict demand but banks are willing to lend as much as they think people can afford to pay - so I'm not sure how you would go about that nowadays...
It's not true that building is the only way to increase supply because people respond to price signals by changing the way they use property. If interest rates went up to 10%, you'd suddenly see a big increase in the supply of property on the market.
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.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
So do we, stamp duty
That's not a land tax, its a tax on sales. Completely different.
Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with an annual land tax, like capitalist America has.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well I don't yet issue Fatwas of death on those who disrespect my values and faith that is true
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well I don't yet issue Fatwas of death on those who disrespect my values and faith that is true
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Maybe so but I would prefer people who are potentially voting for you to see your opinions in your own words. If they still elect you thats down to them and my opinion of people from essex falls further
The Youtube algorithm has started showing me some more centrist and leftist political content - probably via Times Radio as a gateway drug. I got through a New Statesman video on Sir's 1st anniversary earlier, that was OK-ish so then it presented me with Ed Balls and George Osborne. Normally I'd avoid, but I thought blow it I'll listen.
Ten seconds in and Ed Balls is telling me 'We now know the tears were because of a personal issue unconnected to politics'. Um, we do? Even Reeves has not gone so far as to claim it was unconnected to politics. She has merely refused to be drawn into discussion on it. I know that Balls is married to a Cabinet Minister, but what value can the fans of this podcast possibly extract from being delivered po-faced mendacity that would make a Government press officer blush? Indeed, if this is the level of informed commentary that Balls offers on every situation that could be detrimental to Government interests, what insight or entertainment does the silly old fart ever provide?
First and last time for me. Didn't even get on to GO.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well for one it is online so it is different and you're comfortable enough with being robust in disagreement online to be offended on his behalf, for two disagreeing is not being rude and most responses haven't been, for three not everyone disagreeing with him has been an atheist so the premise is just a coping mechanism, and for four, people probably wouldn't be as direct with a devout muslim for fear of an unreasonable backlash from that devout muslim, which would reflect poorly on them not on the person making the comments.
I wouldn't burn a picture of Jesus or Muhammed either, but I'd only be afraid of doing the latter - but lack of willingness to say or do something because X will get mad and Y would not would not make criticism of one unreasonable, just that X are very very unreasonable.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
Indeed. If I was going to name a likely exception, it would be you. You’re happy to be rude to anyone - which is in this case admirable
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
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?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
Sofia is a strange city. It should be an historic gem but I recently learned that the RAF - with American help - completely obliterated the ancient centre in WW2
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well for one it is online so it is different and you're comfortable enough with being robust in disagreement online to be offended on his behalf, for two disagreeing is not being rude and most responses haven't been, for three not everyone disagreeing with him has been an atheist so the premise is just a coping mechanism, and for four, people probably wouldn't be as direct with a devout muslim for fear of an unreasonable backlash from that devout muslim, which would reflect poorly on them not on the person making the comments.
I wouldn't burn a picture of Jesus or Muhammed either, but I'd only be afraid of doing the latter - but lack of willingness to say or do something because X will get mad and Y would not would not make criticism of one unreasonable, just that X are very very unreasonable.
I got into an argument with a delegation of neighbours, we were the only white people it was a very working class muslim area 100m from the mosque. They told me the girl I lived with shouldnt wear a jeans and tshirt out and should cover her hair when she left the house. I told them where to go and that they were in england not iran and if they wanted to argue I have a battleaxe
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”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
Have you not noticed that that world has gone, and the new one is rather different? Most of the changes brought about under, and often by, conservative governments.
Gone for now, who knows what will happen if 10 or 20 years if most western nations have far right governments with a traditional view of gender roles?
Most of the legislation giving women equal pay in work etc were of course brought in by Labour governments
If you want that, why on earth haven't you joined reform already? The Tories are never going to deliver it for you (neither is reform, but at least there's some doubt, having no track record)
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Oh, and as an aside, a friend of ours knows an exclusive Gaelic speaker on Inis Meáin - though the odds of him wanting to relocate to Britain to gain British citizenship are likely to be slim.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
I think Bart is fixated on increasing supply because markets are based on supply and demand - and the only way to increase supply is to build more.
Now the other way to change the market would be to restrict demand but banks are willing to lend as much as they think people can afford to pay - so I'm not sure how you would go about that nowadays...
It's not true that building is the only way to increase supply because people respond to price signals by changing the way they use property. If interest rates went up to 10%, you'd suddenly see a big increase in the supply of property on the market.
Would you look to work through the consequences of your fix - I suspect the recession would be something to behold and best witnessed from a fair distance away..
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well for one it is online so it is different and you're comfortable enough with being robust in disagreement online to be offended on his behalf, for two disagreeing is not being rude and most responses haven't been, for three not everyone disagreeing with him has been an atheist so the premise is just a coping mechanism, and for four, people probably wouldn't be as direct with a devout muslim for fear of an unreasonable backlash from that devout muslim, which would reflect poorly on them not on the person making the comments.
I wouldn't burn a picture of Jesus or Muhammed either, but I'd only be afraid of doing the latter - but lack of willingness to say or do something because X will get mad and Y would not would not make criticism of one unreasonable, just that X are very very unreasonable.
I got into an argument with a delegation of neighbours, we were the only white people it was a very working class muslim area 100m from the mosque. They told me the girl I lived with shouldnt wear a jeans and tshirt out and should cover her hair when she left the house.
Sadly not as uncommon as it should be I expect. Maybe it doesn't happen as much as some say, but it shouldn't happen at all.
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”.
At the end of the day most men want a woman in their life (if not same sex attracted primarily), if women start to see a future without men even in raising a child then inevitably there will be a young male backlash.
See the US where Trump won 52% of men 30-44 and 49% of men under 30 to 48% for Harris, while Harris won 61% of women 18-29 and 56% of women 30-44.
Or even here where at the last general election 12% of 18-24 men voted Reform at the last GE to just 6% of 18-24 women and as Reform now leads polls that trend will have grown further
Then young men need to grow up and work out why women don't want to date them....I suspect attitudes to women such as you display plays a big part in it. Most women don't want to be the trad wife second class citizen role.
They may not but if they reject young men don't be surprised that so many young men are now voting for far right, nationalist, pro traditional family and gender roles parties in response
And voting for notorious womaniser and alleged sexual abuser Trump is going to address this (purported) problem how, exactly?
Well he is scrapping most EDI programmes for starters and that is just the beginning
lol. Girls typically do better than boys at school, nowadays, so they hardly need DEI (which is what I assume you meant) as a leg up into the labour market any more.
Besides, put aside your bizarrely archaic social attitudes, and you can explain most of it with economics. To compete in a globalised world, western economies need to exploit the skill and labour of all their adult populations, not just half of them, and to afford housing and the other essentials of living, having two incomes per household is significantly advantageous (and in some parts of the country pretty much essential, for people in average jobs).
We managed for most of the last century with only 1 full time income per household needed to buy a house with average house prices much cheaper than now
Have you not noticed that that world has gone, and the new one is rather different? Most of the changes brought about under, and often by, conservative governments.
Gone for now, who knows what will happen if 10 or 20 years if most western nations have far right governments with a traditional view of gender roles?
Most of the legislation giving women equal pay in work etc were of course brought in by Labour governments
If you want that, why on earth haven't you joined reform already? The Tories are never going to deliver it for you (neither is reform, but at least there's some doubt, having no track record)
I am not anti equal pay for equal work for women but I do want increased child benefit, marriage tax allowance etc and support for the traditional family which many Tories also do
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
I was criticised a few years ago on here for using the phrase 'Middle Eastern Sky Fairies' to describe the Abrahamic religions.
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?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well for one it is online so it is different and you're comfortable enough with being robust in disagreement online to be offended on his behalf, for two disagreeing is not being rude and most responses haven't been, for three not everyone disagreeing with him has been an atheist so the premise is just a coping mechanism, and for four, people probably wouldn't be as direct with a devout muslim for fear of an unreasonable backlash from that devout muslim, which would reflect poorly on them not on the person making the comments.
I wouldn't burn a picture of Jesus or Muhammed either, but I'd only be afraid of doing the latter - but lack of willingness to say or do something because X will get mad and Y would not would not make criticism of one unreasonable, just that X are very very unreasonable.
If you had a picture of Mohammed wouldn't burning it actually be the optimal thing to do? Isn't the portrayal of him the big no-no in the first place? (I speak from the ignorance of a tiny knowledge on the subject)
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.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
So do we, stamp duty
That's not a land tax, its a tax on sales. Completely different.
Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with an annual land tax, like capitalist America has.
We also have council tax
Yes but stamp duty is a block on people moving and downsizing - it really shouldn't exist on primary properties if you want to move for work or downsize when they retire.
The ideal solution would be to remove stamp duty and increase council tax so that it (as a minimum) collects what was previously collected by stamp duty...
And again increasing council tax would encourage people in larger houses to move as they no longer needed a property of that size.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well for one it is online so it is different and you're comfortable enough with being robust in disagreement online to be offended on his behalf, for two disagreeing is not being rude and most responses haven't been, for three not everyone disagreeing with him has been an atheist so the premise is just a coping mechanism, and for four, people probably wouldn't be as direct with a devout muslim for fear of an unreasonable backlash from that devout muslim, which would reflect poorly on them not on the person making the comments.
I wouldn't burn a picture of Jesus or Muhammed either, but I'd only be afraid of doing the latter - but lack of willingness to say or do something because X will get mad and Y would not would not make criticism of one unreasonable, just that X are very very unreasonable.
I got into an argument with a delegation of neighbours, we were the only white people it was a very working class muslim area 100m from the mosque. They told me the girl I lived with shouldnt wear a jeans and tshirt out and should cover her hair when she left the house.
Sadly not as uncommon as it should be I expect. Maybe it doesn't happen as much as some say, but it shouldn't happen at all.
I have lived in areas with middle class muslims, they were great no problems at all. We bought a house and it was cheap because most people didn't want to live there but we didn't see that as a problem because we had had plenty of muslim neighbours....boy was it different
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
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
Really?
It was a DUP private members bill. They'd tried to bring it in several times, as far back as 2001, but it's only in 2024 that it was given sufficient Parliamentary time.
You're being a complete loon about this. Way over the top conspiratorial thinking. It's really disturbing. Take a step back and think about it. William Glenn is winding you up.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
I think Bart is fixated on increasing supply because markets are based on supply and demand - and the only way to increase supply is to build more.
Now the other way to change the market would be to restrict demand but banks are willing to lend as much as they think people can afford to pay - so I'm not sure how you would go about that nowadays...
It's not true that building is the only way to increase supply because people respond to price signals by changing the way they use property. If interest rates went up to 10%, you'd suddenly see a big increase in the supply of property on the market.
Would you look to work through the consequences of your fix - I suspect the recession would be something to behold and best witnessed from a fair distance away..
That would create a virtuous circle as increased emigration would reduce demand for housing.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
But thats his point he wants to take away choice from women, they arent full citizens
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
You could regulate the mortgage market to prevent two incomes from being taken into account when deciding how much to lend. People could still use a second income to help them afford a bigger house, but not by borrowing.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Sofia is a strange city. It should be an historic gem but I recently learned that the RAF - with American help - completely obliterated the ancient centre in WW2
Yay UK
Bulgaria were Allies of Germany (in both World Wars), no?
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
You could regulate the mortgage market to prevent two incomes from being taken into account when deciding how much to lend. People could still use a second income to help them afford a bigger house, but not by borrowing.
It wouldn’t change a thing as the effect still exists in terms of the building of the deposit.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs 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
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
Well I don't yet issue Fatwas of death on those who disrespect my values and faith that is true
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
You could regulate the mortgage market to prevent two incomes from being taken into account when deciding how much to lend. People could still use a second income to help them afford a bigger house, but not by borrowing.
It wouldn’t change a thing as the effect still exists in terms of the building of the deposit.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
Indeed. If I was going to name a likely exception, it would be you. You’re happy to be rude to anyone - which is in this case admirable
"Do you think it's Allah's will that we are all born stark, raving naked?"
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
Really?
It was a DUP private members bill. They'd tried to bring it in several times, as far back as 2001, but it's only in 2024 that it was given sufficient Parliamentary time.
You're being a complete loon about this. Way over the top conspiratorial thinking. It's really disturbing. Take a step back and think about it. William Glenn is winding you up.
Aren’t you the cretin that literally claimed, yesterday, that “it’s really encouraging that Britain is top of the world rape tables, as it shows our women are empowered”?
That was you, wasn’t it? I forget otherwise, you’re so nondescript
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.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
So do we, stamp duty
That's not a land tax, its a tax on sales. Completely different.
Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with an annual land tax, like capitalist America has.
We also have council tax
Yes but stamp duty is a block on people moving and downsizing - it really shouldn't exist on primary properties if you want to move for work or downsize when they retire.
The ideal solution would be to remove stamp duty and increase council tax so that it (as a minimum) collects what was previously collected by stamp duty...
And again increasing council tax would encourage people in larger houses to move as they no longer needed a property of that size.
Try getting re elected as a local council trying to massively increase council tax
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
Indeed. If I was going to name a likely exception, it would be you. You’re happy to be rude to anyone - which is in this case admirable
"Do you think it's Allah's will that we are all born stark, raving naked?"
I only post when stark,raving and naked......I cant keep being reborn however as adolescence you dont want to go through more than once....the acne
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
You could regulate the mortgage market to prevent two incomes from being taken into account when deciding how much to lend. People could still use a second income to help them afford a bigger house, but not by borrowing.
It wouldn’t change a thing as the effect still exists in terms of the building of the deposit.
It would dramatically dampen the effect.
So what? The end result is the same. It just might take a little longer. The fact of the matter is that if you allow women liberty history tells us that they choose to work.
Realistically foreign or boomer capital would simply buy up all the housing stock.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Zero sympathy for what? This is capitalism.
No, it is women putting careers and making money first.
Capitalism is private sector rather than state sector control of most of the economy, we had capitalism still in the mid 19th century when no women went to university, few women worked full time and most women were married and had 2 or 3 children by the time they were 30
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.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Is CCHQ aware of the shit you post?
Do I care? I am not a Conservative elected representative or candidate and on current polls even if I was would have little chance of election.
It is the populist right surging in this country with Reform at present
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
No I don't live in Epping now but a hamlet between North Weald and Ongar
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
I was criticised a few years ago on here for using the phrase 'Middle Eastern Sky Fairies' to describe the Abrahamic religions.
I think that this pretty much sums up my position but I also find it wrong to express such disrespectful views of those with religious beliefs, including @HYUFD (Kudos to him for the first like to my comment above, by the way).
I have a real problem with the misogynistic views of many religions, the Muslim religion in particular. I think those who come to live here should seek to assimilate and acknowledge that we have moved on from that. I do not think we should respect religious views that are inconsistent with our fundamental principles.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
No I don't live in Epping now but a hamlet between North Weald and Ongar
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
No I don't live in Epping now but a hamlet between North Weald and Ongar
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
So again I have zero sympathy for such couples moaning about rising house prices, as it is a result of greed they are rising
Sofia is a strange city. It should be an historic gem but I recently learned that the RAF - with American help - completely obliterated the ancient centre in WW2
Yay UK
Bulgaria were Allies of Germany (in both World Wars), no?
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
I was criticised a few years ago on here for using the phrase 'Middle Eastern Sky Fairies' to describe the Abrahamic religions.
So you should be, though it's an opinion and expression you are absolutely entitled to hold and use. It doesn't really do justice to the traditions exemplified in Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonides. And there is even stuff in theAbrahamic religions traditions after the 13th century worth a look.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
I was criticised a few years ago on here for using the phrase 'Middle Eastern Sky Fairies' to describe the Abrahamic religions.
I think that this pretty much sums up my position but I also find it wrong to express such disrespectful views of those with religious beliefs, including @HYUFD (Kudos to him for the first like to my comment above, by the way).
I have a real problem with the misogynistic views of many religions, the Muslim religion in particular. I think those who come to live here should seek to assimilate and acknowledge that we have moved on from that. I do not think we should respect religious views that are inconsistent with our fundamental principles.
Hmm well I suspect you would find some of my religous views inconsistent but I am a celtic pagan.....not someone coming in how do you square that circle?
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
You could regulate the mortgage market to prevent two incomes from being taken into account when deciding how much to lend. People could still use a second income to help them afford a bigger house, but not by borrowing.
It wouldn’t change a thing as the effect still exists in terms of the building of the deposit.
It would dramatically dampen the effect.
So what? The end result is the same. It just might take a little longer. The fact of the matter is that if you allow women liberty history tells us that they choose to work.
Realistically foreign or boomer capital would simply buy up all the housing stock.
You're conflating different issues: who owns the properties versus the price level of the properties. Reducing the ability of people to use leverage to buy would obviously have an impact on the price level.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Zero sympathy for what? This is capitalism.
No, it is women putting careers and making money first.
Capitalism is private sector rather than state sector control of most of the economy, we had capitalism still in the mid 19th century when no women went to university, few women worked full time and most women were married and had 2 or 3 children by the time they were 30
With you, the problem is always the *women*.
Not the men.
If your religion and 'faith' tells you that, then your faith isn't worth spitting on.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
And yet house prices in the late 1990s were not unaffordable. It was the mortage frenzy and then mass immigration that happened in this millenium that changed the picture.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
No I don't live in Epping now but a hamlet between North Weald and Ongar
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Most of the housing market is made up of trade in the existing stock. You are too fixated on new builds which are a only small component of the market.
I think Bart is fixated on increasing supply because markets are based on supply and demand - and the only way to increase supply is to build more.
Now the other way to change the market would be to restrict demand but banks are willing to lend as much as they think people can afford to pay - so I'm not sure how you would go about that nowadays...
There was talk at the time of the Great Financial Crash of the Central Bank using specific mortgage market interventions to restrict the availability of mortgage finance, so that the housing market could be brought under control without crashing the wider economy with high interest rates - things like limits on income multiples, etc. But it doesn't seem to have happened in a significant way.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
That bears out my point. I'm in rural Essex ..... North of Chelmsford..... and most of my friends and acquaintances are considerably more liberal than our friend appears to be.
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
I was criticised a few years ago on here for using the phrase 'Middle Eastern Sky Fairies' to describe the Abrahamic religions.
I think that this pretty much sums up my position but I also find it wrong to express such disrespectful views of those with religious beliefs, including @HYUFD (Kudos to him for the first like to my comment above, by the way).
I have a real problem with the misogynistic views of many religions, the Muslim religion in particular. I think those who come to live here should seek to assimilate and acknowledge that we have moved on from that. I do not think we should respect religious views that are inconsistent with our fundamental principles.
Rubbishy religious views are like rubbishy secular views, they are not entitled to respect, but they are entitled to be tolerated. People both religious and secular are entitled to live lives others think weird, within the rule of law, within the rules of freedom and consent, and within their private lives.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
That bears out my point. I'm in rural Essex ..... North of Chelmsford..... and most of my friends and acquaintances are considerably more liberal than our friend appears to be.
Hardly surprising given Chelmsford is the only constituency in Essex with a LD MP and only LD district council area in the county too
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
No I don't live in Epping now but a hamlet between North Weald and Ongar
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?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
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.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
So do we, stamp duty
That's not a land tax, its a tax on sales. Completely different.
Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with an annual land tax, like capitalist America has.
We also have council tax
Yes but stamp duty is a block on people moving and downsizing - it really shouldn't exist on primary properties if you want to move for work or downsize when they retire.
The ideal solution would be to remove stamp duty and increase council tax so that it (as a minimum) collects what was previously collected by stamp duty...
And again increasing council tax would encourage people in larger houses to move as they no longer needed a property of that size.
Try getting re elected as a local council trying to massively increase council tax
Um if stamp duty is being merged into council tax it would be central government doing so...
And all council budgets are going to be based on council tax rising at least 5% a year for the next x years..
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Zero sympathy for what? This is capitalism.
No, it is women putting careers and making money first.
Capitalism is private sector rather than state sector control of most of the economy, we had capitalism still in the mid 19th century when no women went to university, few women worked full time and most women were married and had 2 or 3 children by the time they were 30
With you, the problem is always the *women*.
Not the men.
If your religion and 'faith' tells you that, then your faith isn't worth spitting on.
There is nothing in the Bible about 2 full time earning couples increasing house prices but it is a fact all the same
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Zero sympathy for what? This is capitalism.
No, it is women putting careers and making money first.
Capitalism is private sector rather than state sector control of most of the economy, we had capitalism still in the mid 19th century when no women went to university, few women worked full time and most women were married and had 2 or 3 children by the time they were 30
With you, the problem is always the *women*.
Not the men.
If your religion and 'faith' tells you that, then your faith isn't worth spitting on.
God enabled the invention of the dishwasher, washing machine and robot hoover, so s/he/it's not without sympathy
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
Really?
It was a DUP private members bill. They'd tried to bring it in several times, as far back as 2001, but it's only in 2024 that it was given sufficient Parliamentary time.
You're being a complete loon about this. Way over the top conspiratorial thinking. It's really disturbing. Take a step back and think about it. William Glenn is winding you up.
Aren’t you the cretin that literally claimed, yesterday, that “it’s really encouraging that Britain is top of the world rape tables, as it shows our women are empowered”?
That was you, wasn’t it? I forget otherwise, you’re so nondescript
But, lol
I didn't use the word empowered.
The first step to fixing a problem - like rape - is being open about it, and if more women feel able to report their rapes than I welcome that.
I'll welcome it when you are able to acknowledge that you have a problem with conspiratorial thinking, rushed hot takes that are so very wrong, and a lack of critical thinking skills. I'll be here for you.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
You’re missing the point that the cycle starts again as it’s always “if you just work a few hours more we could afford X” until both adults are full time again.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Well if they try and do that I have zero sympathy. If most couples have 2 full time earners working house prices will always be much higher than they would otherwise be no matter how many houses built or how much immigration cut.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
Zero sympathy for what? This is capitalism.
No, it is women putting careers and making money first.
Capitalism is private sector rather than state sector control of most of the economy, we had capitalism still in the mid 19th century when no women went to university, few women worked full time and most women were married and had 2 or 3 children by the time they were 30
With you, the problem is always the *women*.
Not the men.
If your religion and 'faith' tells you that, then your faith isn't worth spitting on.
There is nothing in the Bible about 2 full time earning couples increasing house prices but it is a fact all the same
If I may say so, you're on absolutely cracking form today.
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?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
1970 to 2004 (which is when the final set of increases arrived up north) as banks went from 3+1 mortgages to 3+3 and 4+4 income ratios..
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
Your last paragraph is weird
Why should women be subservient to men ?
Well the Bible says it so if you are a traditional Christian
'Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."
Or for Muslims Surah An-Nisa (4:34) "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So that is Paul's opinion not God/Jesus. Also the Islamic quote doesn't say anything about women being subservient to men. You can protect and support your wife without suborning her
I dunno, but I’m PRETTY sure Islam is quite firm on the “women are subservient” thing. Just a hunch
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
🙋♂️
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
I was criticised a few years ago on here for using the phrase 'Middle Eastern Sky Fairies' to describe the Abrahamic religions.
I think that this pretty much sums up my position but I also find it wrong to express such disrespectful views of those with religious beliefs, including @HYUFD (Kudos to him for the first like to my comment above, by the way).
I have a real problem with the misogynistic views of many religions, the Muslim religion in particular. I think those who come to live here should seek to assimilate and acknowledge that we have moved on from that. I do not think we should respect religious views that are inconsistent with our fundamental principles.
Hmm well I suspect you would find some of my religous views inconsistent but I am a celtic pagan.....not someone coming in how do you square that circle?
Well as long as you are not for burning virgins or whatever I don't really care what your religious beliefs are.
People are entitled to their private views but as a society we need to accept that the majority view is that there are 2 sexes, they are equal, people can sleep with whoever they want provided that they are of age and not too closely related, the colour of a person's skin is completely irrelevant and we should care for those who are vulnerable and in need. Pretty basic stuff, really.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
No I don't live in Epping now but a hamlet between North Weald and Ongar
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
Perhaps then men should give up work and become home makers I doubt you would support that however
A few men might want to but they would still have a partner working in partnership with them
Ah I see so in your view the man gets to choose and the woman gets told what to do.....you come across as a mysognist, incel idiot and you tarnish your party by your association with it.
They come to the decision together, they are however in a relationship not a single career woman rejecting most men as unsuitable.
The Tories are of course relatively moderate on this, it is Reform and populist and far right parties surging across the western world pushing a return to traditional gender roles and gaining young mens' votes
It is quite a fact as a conservative I could not vote for you with your arcane and misogynistic views
Yes well I wasn't talking about over 80 year old pensioners like you, it is young men under 40 increasingly shifting to the populist right
If you ever get to stand for parliament I have a collection of your posts and I will print them out and go to your constituency and hand deliver them to your prospective constituents
In my corner of rural Essex I would probably be considered a wet liberal
Don't diss rural Essex.
Rural? He's on the Central Line!
That bears out my point. I'm in rural Essex ..... North of Chelmsford..... and most of my friends and acquaintances are considerably more liberal than our friend appears to be.
Hardly surprising given Chelmsford is the only constituency in Essex with a LD MP and only LD district council area in the county too
I've previously posted that I'm in Priti Patel's constituency, so to be fair there are quite a few right-wing voters. However, most of my friends aren't.
Sofia is a strange city. It should be an historic gem but I recently learned that the RAF - with American help - completely obliterated the ancient centre in WW2
Yay UK
Bulgaria were Allies of Germany (in both World Wars), no?
They expanded all the way down to the Northern Greek coast in World War Ii, and then had to hand it all back again.
A strange and uniquely mixed record on their Jewish population- I think almost all of their own were saved, but they helped to round up about 60,000 Greek Jews, in the historic adversary to the South. Although as with Western Turkey, a lot of the people in Southwest of the country have Greek connections.
They also have beautiful choirs, from the North to the South of the country, and great musical traditions.
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?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Comments
You don't get Supply and Demand at all do you?
Pick up an economics textbook. It doesn't matter whether a house is a new build or existing stock, they're all affected by the same market conditions.
New builds aren't magically better, though they are better in many ways due to improving standards on stuff like insulation, and worse in other ways like typically smaller.
What they are though, is extra supply. We need supply to rise by more than demand to lower prices and that would affect all houses, both new and old.
Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with an annual land tax, like capitalist America has.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/YG-Archive-190213-taxes.pdf
Now the other way to change the market would be to restrict demand but banks are willing to lend as much as they think people can afford to pay - so I'm not sure how you would go about that nowadays...
I also wonder how many of you brave atheists would be as rude to a devout Muslim on here, as you are to dear old @HYUFD
I suspect very few of you would manage it
THROW OUT THE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS !!!!!! SEND THEM BACK TO WHERE THEIR GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT(*) GRANDPARENTS CAME FROM WHENEVER THEY CAME HERE!!!!!
I couldn't care less which medieval religion people have, I'm quite happy to speak my mind either way. Have done so in the past and on this site was called Islamophobic by someone here for disagreeing with their beliefs. Was someone who didn't last long, can't remember their name.
Ten seconds in and Ed Balls is telling me 'We now know the tears were because of a personal issue unconnected to politics'. Um, we do? Even Reeves has not gone so far as to claim it was unconnected to politics. She has merely refused to be drawn into discussion on it. I know that Balls is married to a Cabinet Minister, but what value can the fans of this podcast possibly extract from being delivered po-faced mendacity that would make a Government press officer blush? Indeed, if this is the level of informed commentary that Balls offers on every situation that could be detrimental to Government interests, what insight or entertainment does the silly old fart ever provide?
First and last time for me. Didn't even get on to GO.
I wouldn't burn a picture of Jesus or Muhammed either, but I'd only be afraid of doing the latter - but lack of willingness to say or do something because X will get mad and Y would not would not make criticism of one unreasonable, just that X are very very unreasonable.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
Yay UK
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
The ideal solution would be to remove stamp duty and increase council tax so that it (as a minimum) collects what was previously collected by stamp duty...
And again increasing council tax would encourage people in larger houses to move as they no longer needed a property of that size.
It was a DUP private members bill. They'd tried to bring it in several times, as far back as 2001, but it's only in 2024 that it was given sufficient Parliamentary time.
You're being a complete loon about this. Way over the top conspiratorial thinking. It's really disturbing. Take a step back and think about it. William Glenn is winding you up.
The genie is not going back in the bottle unless you severely restrict women’s freedom to choose by law under threat of violence.
Women having full time careers even after marriage and children has costs too
That was you, wasn’t it? I forget otherwise, you’re so nondescript
But, lol
Realistically foreign or boomer capital would simply buy up all the housing stock.
Capitalism is private sector rather than state sector control of most of the economy, we had capitalism still in the mid 19th century when no women went to university, few women worked full time and most women were married and had 2 or 3 children by the time they were 30
It is the populist right surging in this country with Reform at present
I have a real problem with the misogynistic views of many religions, the Muslim religion in particular. I think those who come to live here should seek to assimilate and acknowledge that we have moved on from that. I do not think we should respect religious views that are inconsistent with our fundamental principles.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
Not the men.
If your religion and 'faith' tells you that, then your faith isn't worth spitting on.
Suits you
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
And all council budgets are going to be based on council tax rising at least 5% a year for the next x years..
The first step to fixing a problem - like rape - is being open about it, and if more women feel able to report their rapes than I welcome that.
I'll welcome it when you are able to acknowledge that you have a problem with conspiratorial thinking, rushed hot takes that are so very wrong, and a lack of critical thinking skills. I'll be here for you.
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Was that you? It was you, wasn’t it?
People are entitled to their private views but as a society we need to accept that the majority view is that there are 2 sexes, they are equal, people can sleep with whoever they want provided that they are of age and not too closely related, the colour of a person's skin is completely irrelevant and we should care for those who are vulnerable and in need. Pretty basic stuff, really.
A strange and uniquely mixed record on their Jewish population- I think almost all of their own were saved, but they helped to round up about 60,000 Greek Jews, in the historic adversary to the South. Although as with
Western Turkey, a lot of the people in Southwest of the country have Greek connections.
They also have beautiful choirs, from the North to the South of the country, and great musical traditions.