Kemi Badenoch: I would give Joanne K Rowling a peerage
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...h-i-would-give-jk-rowling-a-peerage-qqbsr22rj
The text speak blocker prevents me from just using her first two initials before her surname.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
The text speak blocker prevents me from just using her first two initials before her surname.
To be fair Rowling's shite books inspired a generation of children to read more, irrespective of her backwards and/or hateful views on trans people. If I were her I wouldn't be accepting a peerage from Kemi Badenoch though
You're joking?!
Pretty sure its short for "just kidding" so probably why its banned
That's the real shocker here. Also j k rowling works.
Bloody hell!
She has been complaining there’s been a crisis with conservatism. I assume she will agree with him or is she just picking and choosing which parts of traditional conservatism she likes?
She's already said she wants babies to suffer nursery at younger ages despite no developmental need for them to be in that setting, purely because she wants women in work faster. I imagine she probably agrees with this and intends for her children to suffer through her two years worth of leader of the opposition before the racists in the party replace her for not being white. I'd say for being shit, but we all know that's not the reason they would replace her.
It just seems odd; Tories saying Badenoch can't lead because she has kids and Republicans saying Harris can'ty lead because she doesn't have (her own) kids!
I'm sure this will work out well, nothing bad has ever come of this.
It's Chope, the controversy almost should be if he wasn't insulting someone.
I almost think it's a good thing he held his seat.
Rowling is herself an oddball and a bad person. I mean, she thinks about trans people more than trans people do. Badenoch is a really, really horrible person, trying her best to be Britain’s Trump.
Of fecking course. Absolute fecking cnuts.
The amount saved from cutting the winter fuel allowance so severely and now sickness benefits feels very small compared to the harm and ill-will caused.
I can understand wanting to get to the core of why the number of those out of work claiming sickness benefits has risen exponentially since before Covid. is it all down to NHS backlogs and cuts to mental health services or are there other factors at play that can be addressed, whether environmental, dietary or exercise-related? Just slashing benefits is obviously solving nothing.
It is unprecedented in the OECD and the G7 chart shows what a real outlier the UK is- 2.7 million adults out of work sick is remarkable.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.or...text=The UK is the only,since the end of 2019.
I can understand wanting to get to the core of why the number of those out of work claiming sickness benefits has risen exponentially since before Covid. is it all down to NHS backlogs and cuts to mental health services or are there other factors at play that can be addressed, whether environmental, dietary or exercise-related? Just slashing benefits is obviously solving nothing.
It is unprecedented in the OECD and the G7 chart shows what a real outlier the UK is- 2.7 million adults out of work sick is remarkable.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.or...text=The UK is the only,since the end of 2019.
Oh feck off.
The amount saved from cutting the winter fuel allowance so severely and now sickness benefits feels very small compared to the harm and ill-will caused.
I can understand wanting to get to the core of why the number of those out of work claiming sickness benefits has risen exponentially since before Covid. is it all down to NHS backlogs and cuts to mental health services or are there other factors at play that can be addressed, whether environmental, dietary or exercise-related? Just slashing benefits is obviously solving nothing.
It is unprecedented in the OECD and the G7 chart shows what a real outlier the UK is- 2.7 million adults out of work sick is remarkable.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/a-u-shaped-legacy/#:~:text=The UK is the only,since the end of 2019.
It may also be that younger generations are joining the workforce who are more attuned to acknowledging poor mental health is a valid reason for being off sick
To that extent and only in the UK though? Sounds unlikely.
I'd say it's quite likely. We're incredibly 'post-Victorian' in many areas of society in comparison to our nearest counterparts, with older generations much more submissive (or proud of) 'the grind', which younger generation(s) are splintering from.
Fair point! I'd guess at the severe cuts to MH services.
So the budget is basically The Wire Season 4?
Might be, no idea. The level of inactivity is quite a headache when the UK is already a laggard on productivity and no-one's been able to solve that conundrum either.
Walk me through this one
It's why many are beginning to think Starmer is flogging a dead horse with his objective of GBWA (Get Britain Working Again)... 'living to work' ....is not an aspiration in the younger generations 'Life play-book'.
Definitely not, especially when starter salaries are so low, and the cost of living so high.
Why bother going out to work all week in a job that ruins your mental health just so you can fork over almost all the money you make to a landlord and the utility companies?
A way to help get that generation back into good health (and then possibly after that into work) is to make their outlook less fecking bleak and come up with policies that don't screw them over in order to benefit the older and richer ones. Like mandated affordable housing, rent controls, or building/acquiring social housing to ease up the grind a little for them?
According to the GOP Bernie Sanders is a Socialist/Communist, in Europe he'd be considered a moderate conservative!
I find it genuinely very weird that the UK Prime Minister feels the need to give national addresses when something prominent happens with Israel in a war that we aren’t actually supposed to be involved in…. He did it a week ago when Iran bombed some infrastructure and now he’s done one for the death of Sinwar. Surely a tweet will do?
Was Yahya Sinwar an active or even existential threat to the United Kingdom?
Was Yahya Sinwar an active or even existential threat to the United Kingdom?
Last edited:
Can think of very few actual conservatives in uk parliament in the last 15 years. A few racists but nothing even approaching what the US would call a centrist.
The amount saved from cutting the winter fuel allowance so severely and now sickness benefits feels very small compared to the harm and ill-will caused.
I can understand wanting to get to the core of why the number of those out of work claiming sickness benefits has risen exponentially since before Covid. is it all down to NHS backlogs and cuts to mental health services or are there other factors at play that can be addressed, whether environmental, dietary or exercise-related? Just slashing benefits is obviously solving nothing.
It is unprecedented in the OECD and the G7 chart shows what a real outlier the UK is- 2.7 million adults out of work sick is remarkable.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/a-u-shaped-legacy/#:~:text=The UK is the only,since the end of 2019.
To get to the answer there you'd need to compare both how easy it is to get signed off sick and what people's attitude to work is.
The former I have no idea. The latter I have some suspicions.
No.
There aren't any called that, they are all called facist communists or right wing facist nutjobs
I keep missing something:
Why is "Person X spends Y hours a day with their family, which makes them a good family person. But they need to be expected to commit Z hours to this job, which overlaps with Y, therefore they wouldn't be a good candidate."
Why is this a) even about gender when he even said himself that it kinda affects the bloke too b) even controversial? Specific jobs require certain sacrifices on family and if people aren't willing to make those sacrifices perhaps the job isn't for them?
Why is "Person X spends Y hours a day with their family, which makes them a good family person. But they need to be expected to commit Z hours to this job, which overlaps with Y, therefore they wouldn't be a good candidate."
Why is this a) even about gender when he even said himself that it kinda affects the bloke too b) even controversial? Specific jobs require certain sacrifices on family and if people aren't willing to make those sacrifices perhaps the job isn't for them?
It's really weird. Can't tell if it's a fairly pathetic attempt to try to look relevant on the World stage, because we're now so slavishly following US political trends that he's just stuck in lock step, or if the endless fallout of the Labour anti-semitism stigma makes him think that he has to make as public a point as is possible.
My company's starting salaries are low (same as most companies tbf other than tech and some finance roles). The best graduates leave the UK to US, Singapore, Australia after a few years. It's around the time they figure out the s*** lifestyle that awaits them if they stay here. I don't blame them.
This is a huge exaggeration.
Australia is easy to go to for low skilled workers but the market in general for white collar workers is around the same as the UK.
US is also a nightmare.
I've been sponsored for H1B's and it's pure luck, and right now I'm 50% in DC and 50% in London and ultimately my work made me a "Director" just so i could be eligible for L-1 Visa's.
There is no way 99% of even "top" graduates from the UK are getting to USA. No chance.
Do you have any statistics for that?