Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

Lower migration is bad news for the UK economy

Published

on

Lower migration is bad news for the UK economy

Lauren Gilbert argues that migrants to the UK are net fiscal contributors, adding much more to the economy than they take out, and that the recent collapse in immigration will harm the UK’s economic prospects.

Across the political spectrum, politicians are concerned about the fiscal impact of immigration. The concern has been most pointed from Reform, who have warned of a coming ‘fiscal abyss’ if recent immigrants are not forced to leave the country, but it is not limited to them.

Tory rising star Katie Lam argued that new immigrants will cost the Treasury “hundreds of billions of pounds” if they stay in the UK. Douglas Carswell has said that ‘migrants are draining our welfare system’. Even Labour has picked up the rhetoric, with the Home Secretary saying that fiscal contribution is “a condition of staying in the UK”.

All of this concern is misplaced. Home Office data suggests that recent immigrants are more likely to be working than British nationals and make higher wages than them. They are also likely to be net fiscal contributors. Far from draining our welfare system, migrants are supporting the British state’s solvency.

Advertisement

My analysis is based on Home Office salary data for the fiscal year 2023-2024. They provide earnings and labour force participation data for migrants who first entered the UK between 2019 and 2023. This dataset includes some 1.7 million people who entered on visas that permit work. This dataset excludes students – who are not expected to be in work – but includes all other types of visas, including humanitarian visas.

Contrary to the belief that these migrants work in low-wage, casual positions, I find that the average migrant actually makes more than the average native-born person aged 16-64. I calculate that the mean annualised wage of a migrant who entered in this period was £24,881, while the average person in the UK only made £23,990 that year.

Note that these figures include dependants and those currently not in work, but not those who have (very likely) left the country. The mean wage for an employed migrant is some £33,534 per annum, well above the minimum wage and the London Living wage. This, again, is more than the average wage for a native-born person; the overall average wage brought home by an employed person in the UK was just £31,891.

But it is not simply that employed migrants support unemployed family members. Despite the common perception that migrants “didn’t come here to work”, labour force participation for non-UK citizens is actually higher for migrants than it is for British citizens. This makes sense; since many migrants are not allowed to access public benefits, and some are on visas that require employment, it will be true by construction that migrants are very likely to be working.

Advertisement

There are two reasons to believe the wage gap between migrants and the native-born will grow over time, with migrants continuing to outearn natives.

First, migrants are, on average, younger than the native-born; they can expect their wages to increase as they gain experience. The Migration Observatory also has found that migrants’ wages rise very sharply over their first few years in the UK – as people gain UK experience and knowledge, they are able to find better jobs.

Secondly, it is likely that those who stay long-term earn more than the average immigrant. In general, when immigrants struggle in a new labour market, they are more likely to return to their home country. In the Netherlands, the likelihood of staying was an inverted U shape – the lowest earners were the most likely to leave, followed by the highest earners, with medium-earners the most likely to stay.

All of this is good news for the public purse. Indeed, Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) modelling suggests that the UK will benefit significantly from the recent increase in migration.

Advertisement

In general, people are costly to the state during two periods of their life: childhood and old age. In childhood, the state must fund care and schooling; in old age, the state must provide care and pay for medical expenses. Immigrants are a bargain for the British state because it need not pay for their early childhood and education.

The OBR models that a migrant that makes a similar amount to the average Briton will contribute nearly £500,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Given the average recent migrant makes slightly more than the average British person, they will be a significant net fiscal contributor.

Nor would their children be particularly costly to the British state. It is true that immigrants tend to have more children than average, but the children of immigrants tend to earn slightly more than the children of the native-born. Perhaps one might be concerned about the long-run fiscal outlook of the British state in general, but there is no evidence that the children of immigrants will make the situation worse.

Indeed, there is simply no sign of a fiscal catastrophe from the “Boriswave” – i.e. surge in net migration over the past few years. Recent migrants are very likely to be employed, paying tax and seem to be contributing to British society. The Boriswave will help, rather than hurt, Britain’s fiscal position.

Advertisement

Furthermore, this would seem to suggest that the recent collapse in immigration will harm Britain’s finances. The OBR believes that lower net migration could reduce GDP by about 1.5 percentage points by 2028-2029.

This may well be good politics – in early 2025, two in three Britons thought immigration was too high – but it is very likely to be bad economics. Most immigrants are already net fiscal contributors; decreasing their numbers will only decrease their contributions.

By Lauren Gilbert, a researcher in innovation, science, global health and global development.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Farage heckled at Reform’s Jimmy Saville-aping London launch

Published

on

Farage heckled at Reform’s Jimmy Saville-aping London launch

With the local elections fast approaching, Reform UK are working overtime to scale their operation. In aid of this, Farage descended on the capital to push his London-phobic message to the people of London. In response, hecklers made it clear what sort of welcome he should expect:

Farage — ‘Boring’

First things first, the Live Stream and stage both displayed the following message:

We’re not sure why Reform have decided to mimic the catchphrase of Jimmy Saville — Britain’s most notorious paedophile — but here we are.

Advertisement

Notably, we’re not the only ones who are confused; even Reform’s fans are befuddled:

Not sure about the paedo catchphrase, but I do like the anti-migrant chat‘.

Good stuff.

Advertisement

They’re going all in on this, by the way:

Try not to look at the above image for too long, by the way, and especially don’t look him in the eyes.

Back to the London launch, the clip begins with Farage slagging off London fashion before descending into chaos as a heckler shouts over him:

Advertisement

In the most fashionable parts of central London, men now don’t wear… Oh, we’ve got a screamer! We’ve got a screamer! Boring! Boring! Boring!

As he said this, the word ‘BORING’ was flashing on the screen behind him.

Tip for next time, Nigel; it’s never a good idea to repeatedly shout the word ‘boring’ in the middle of your own speech. Also, from a branding perspective, you should have been saying ‘Now then, now then‘ to hammer the Saville stuff home.

Farage continued:

Oh, it’s… Well, that was fun, wasn’t it? And do you know what I’d say to that young man? Do you know what I’d say? I’d say this. What other party leader in modern Britain would have a public event in the Fairfield Halls in Croydon and invite anyone to come along and listen to what I have to say. And you know what? You can agree, you can disagree, it doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter. Who else would come along and do that?

This would be a good point if people’s concern was ‘party leaders won’t come to Croydon‘, and not that Reform is pursuing a far-right agenda of antagonising migrants and diminishing state capacity for the benefit of their tax exile donors.

Advertisement

The heckler resumed heckling, anyway, with Farage finishing:

Listen, mate, you’ll have a coronary. You’ll have a coronary. Do you know? Do you know I’d pay to watch this? And that is what… Well, as I always say, boring, boring.

It wasn’t that boring, to be fair, and it did at least draw attention away from the Saville stuff.

Perspectives

The following video shows things from the perspective of the hecklers:

As people noted, Farage might have suspected an easy ride given the massive anti-fascist protest going on elsewhere in the capital:

We covered that protest here:

There was also a protest outside the event:

Missing in action

While all this is going on, Farage’s constituency was yet again going dangerously underserved:

Farage is so consistently absent from Clacton that he’s now sending his Frankenstein’s monster to appear on his behalf:

How are you going to fix the country, Nigel, when you can’t even fix it to do your own job?

Featured image via Politics UK

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

She was one of AIPAC’s top targets last election. Now she wants back in Congress.

Published

on

Rep. Wesley Bell appeared unconcerned about the impact that AIPAC’s past support could have on his reelection bid.

Two years after a high-profile primary defeat that sent shockwaves through the progressive Squad, Cori Bush wants to go back to Washington.

But as the activist-turned-politician seeks to reclaim her seat, she must also contend with the changed landscape of the Beltway — including a Democratic Party engaged in fierce infighting over the country’s support for Israel that has only intensified since her ousting from Congress, which she argues will fuel her comeback bid.

“I need to go back. I didn’t finish the work that I was doing,” Bush said in a recent interview. “It was interrupted by big money. It was interrupted by AIPAC and their allies who made the decision that they didn’t want this activist, this advocate, who had been speaking out against war and imperialism, that had been speaking out against a genocide in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli government.”

The fight over the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its political arm’s support for candidates has reached a fever pitch among Democrats this election cycle. More and more Democrats have denounced the organization’s influence and, some 2028 presidential contenders have vowed to not accept funding from the organization.

Advertisement

The race in Missouri’s 1st District — a plurality Black district anchored in St. Louis — two years ago was one of the highest-profile fights between critics and supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party, occurring as activists pressured then-candidate Joe Biden over his stance in the raging Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

Then-county prosecutor Wesley Bell — backed by more than $8.5 million in outside spending from the AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project — beat Bush by about 5 points in the primary before easily winning the seat in November. AIPAC’s political arm has yet to spend in the district this year, but they endorsed Bell once again in the 2026 cycle.

Rep. Wesley Bell appeared unconcerned about the impact that AIPAC’s past support could have on his reelection bid.

“Cori Bush was a disastrously ineffective Member of Congress who didn’t deliver for her constituents,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s United Democracy Project, said in a statement. “When voters are reminded of that record of non-accomplishment, they will be no more likely to elect Cori Bush to Congress than they were to re-elect her two years ago. She was a terrible Member of Congress that didn’t [do] anything for St. Louis.”

Usamah Andrabi of Justice Democrats, a progressive organization that endorsed Bush this cycle and last, argued Bell’s history of accepting AIPAC support may now be his downfall.

Advertisement

“Voters are waking up to [AIPAC’s] influence, and that is why you are now seeing AIPAC’s endorsement becoming, I think, a death for so many candidates and incumbents across the country,” said Andrabi.

AIPAC has had a mixed record in Democratic primary contests this year, including a faceplant in New Jersey and a split decision in Illinois, as progressive candidates more outwardly attack the organization.

Dorton highlighted Bush’s missed votes and her vote against Biden’s infrastructure bill as the reason she lost to Bell. For his part, Bell appeared unconcerned about the impact that AIPAC’s past support could have on his reelection bid, calling it nothing more than a “headline” for his opponent.

“Folks in my district, money in politics doesn’t impact whether they can get gas in their car and pay for food and the price of eggs and bringing jobs into our district,” Bell said in an interview. “And so that is a headline that my opponent likes to play into.”

Advertisement

Antjuan Seawright — a longtime Democratic strategist and adviser to top Democratic campaign committees — also argued that a focus on AIPAC won’t motivate most primary voters.

“I know there are some in and outside of our party who want to make the conversations about the type of money folks may or may not receive, but I tend to think it’s more important about the type of services we provide,” Seawright said. “As long as the people feel like you’re representing them, then why should the race be about the type of money instead of about the services you provide to the district?”

But the divide in the Democratic Party over support for Israel has only grown since Bush’s 2024 defeat, particularly amid the war in Iran launched by President Donald Trump and Israeli leaders.

Sixty-seven percent of registered Democrats said in an NBC News poll this month that they sympathized more with Palestinians rather than Israelis in “the Middle East situation.” And a recent Quinnipiac poll found that 53 percent of voters, including 89 percent of Democrats, oppose the U.S-Israel military action against Iran.

Advertisement

Bush speaks at a news conference calling for a ceasefire in Gaza outside the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 13, 2023.

A similar division is playing out among Republicans. Most self-described MAGA voters firmly back the president’s actions, but prominent members of the conservative movement like Tucker Carlson have criticized the conflict, and Joe Kent, who was serving in a senior intelligence role, quit the administration.

“Without a doubt, the fact that Wesley Bell is historically one of the largest recipients of AIPAC money ever is a massive albatross around his neck that should be hit on consistently,” Andrabi said.

And he argued that primary voters are now rewarding Democrats willing to buck party leadership.

“Voters are looking for leaders who are willing to call out their own party when they are failing communities, call out their own party when they are too beholden to corporate lobbies like AIPAC,” he said. “Cori has done that her entire time [in Congress].”

Advertisement

AIPAC-backed groups two years ago broadly did not focus on Israel in contests across the country. They instead targeted Bush’s vote against Biden’s crowning infrastructure bill and missed House votes — a strategy the organization has continued in early primaries this year — and something that Bell amplified.

“I don’t want to hear about someone who claims to fight but won’t show up to do the job,” Bell said.

Bush was among six progressive Democrats who voted against Biden’s infrastructure bill. The group argued that the bill was incomplete without the separate economic package, known as the Build Back Better Act.

But Bush argues her activism — including pushing party leaders from the left — is where the base of the Democratic Party now is.

Advertisement

“The thing is, people are moving toward the things that I was speaking about,” Bush said. “I called it a genocide before many others did. I spoke up for Medicare For All before others did. I pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment in a way that hadn’t been done in a very long time, and I created a caucus to stand for the Equal Rights Amendment.”

Bush, along with other House Democrats, calls on the U.S. Senate to end the filibuster and codify abortion rights May 10, 2022, in Washington,

The tensions between Bell and Bush are a stark difference from their relationship pre-2024. According to Bush, the two had been friends — until Bell launched his campaign against her without a heads up. Bush said the two haven’t talked since, and she didn’t let him know when she decided to run against him this year “the same way he didn’t reach out to me to tell me he was going to run against me.”

Still, Bell already has a few advantages in the race: Not only is he the incumbent, but he secured the endorsement of the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, one of the most influential Black political organizations. And Bell’s campaign war chest is much larger than hers: He has nearly $850,000 on hand as of the end of 2025, according to campaign finance records, compared to just over $200,000 for Bush.

Bell has pitched himself as a pragmatist, saying that voters in the district don’t actually think about many of the issues that Bush pushes for.

Advertisement

“She wasn’t present in St. Louis. She didn’t meet with stakeholders; she didn’t meet with constituents,” he said, highlighting the money he brought to district businesses over the last two years. “The MO in Missouri does not stand for Middle East. It stands for Missouri.”

Bush, meanwhile, has signaled she will lean into her progressive activism for her comeback bid. She said she still speaks regularly with members of the Squad: Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. None of the members responded to a request for comment.

Seawright, the Democratic strategist, said the back-and-forth between the two candidates exemplifies the party’s “growing pains.”

“The primaries, hopefully, will do what they’re supposed to do and settle whatever differences and disputes we may appear to have, but also change the direction of how we move forward,” he said. “No matter the differences we may appear to have amongst each other, they do not compare to the differences we have with the other side.”

Advertisement

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

A month into Iran, the GOP’s political reality sinks in

Published

on

A month into Iran, the GOP’s political reality sinks in

In Nevada, a gallon of gas is approaching $5. In Pennsylvania, farmers are fretting about the prices of fertilizer. And in Michigan, supply chain woes are throwing a wrench into the manufacturing and auto industry operations.

One month into the war in Iran, a new political reality is sinking in for Republicans in these and other battlegrounds: The war may not end as quickly as they initially hoped, and the literal and figurative costs keep rising.

Each week the war drags on prolongs the pain Americans feel. Economists have warned gas prices could continue to remain high for months even if the U.S. immediately de-escalates in Iran. Extended conflict also raises the risk of increased casualties, especially if U.S. servicemembers are deployed to on-the-ground combat. And it could sour MAGA voters whose support of President Donald Trump hinged, in part, on their opposition to “forever wars” and foreign regime change.

Some Republicans worry the war will depress turnout among staunch “America First” proponents ahead of a crucial midterm election. It’s not yet a political crisis, GOP strategists and county chairs across the country said. They’re still willing to trust the president — for now.

Advertisement

But they’re also finding it harder to brush off the consequences.

“What’s the end game? I don’t think the president has been clear about that,” said Todd Gillman, chair of the Monroe County Republican Party in Michigan. “The gas prices are a problem. We’re concerned how this might affect the midterms.”

A POLITICO poll this month found the president’s most loyal voters continue to back his decision to attack Iran, even though some say it violates MAGA principles or even breaks his campaign promise not to start new wars. But it also revealed real political risk if more U.S. troops are killed or the conflict extends much longer than the promised four to six weeks.

“I don’t think it’s going to impact Republicans’ desire to vote Republican, but I do believe that that turnout will be an issue,” said Craig Berland, chair of the Maricopa County, Arizona, Republican Party. “If the war drags on, that is going to impact the turnout, unless we are very, very successful in communicating and educating. And that’s our plan, to do that.”

Advertisement

The situation in Iran remains in flux, and Trump could choose to withdraw U.S. support and end the country’s involvement at any moment.

Until then, the prolonged conflict is complicating the White House’s cost-of-living message, which voters consistently say is their top concern. In recent months, Trump and Vice President JD Vance embarked on an affordability messaging tour, dotting the country to deliver speeches about the administration’s wins in lowering costs and providing relief for working-class families.

But the affordability road show has screeched to a halt in the month since the U.S. launched its war in Iran.

“These types of major events can become all-consuming,” said Buzz Jacobs, a GOP strategist and White House official under George W. Bush. “They certainly suck up political capital, and they make it very difficult for the most senior officials, particularly the President, to focus on any other strategic objective.”

Advertisement

After Bush invaded Iraq, Jacobs recalled, a digital board outside the Situation Room listed the same meeting topics for weeks: “Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, something else, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq,” Jacobs said.

The White House pointed to polling that shows a majority of Republican voters back the Iran war.

“The President has been clear that, while there may be some short-term disruptions as a result of Operation Epic Fury, ultimately oil prices will quickly drop once the operation’s clear objectives have been achieved and America will be back on its solid trajectory of cooling inflation and robust growth thanks to this Administration’s proven economic agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and energy abundance,” spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement.

In several battleground counties, GOP chairs are holding out hope that the impact will be temporary even as the reality of the war sets in and gas prices creep toward a national average of $4 per gallon.

Advertisement

“Yes, it’s painful now. We all realize that it’s painful, with the gas prices,” said Carson City, Nevada GOP chair Susan Ruch. “I know prices are going to go up — but I do know this is short term compared to World War III.”

That optimism is shared by Decatur County, Georgia, GOP Vice Chair Jesse Williard, who also believes gas prices will plummet quickly after the war ends, setting up Republicans to buck historic midterms trends and post a strong showing in November.

“The economy, I think between now and then, is going to be great,” he said. “If it goes the other direction, it may be horrible, but I anticipate it’s going to be a red wave.”

But other GOP county chairs see early fractures ahead of November’s election, driven by surging costs that are already causing pain for businesses and consumers. In the Phoenix metro area, Berland, the Maricopa County chair, said door-to-door canvassing has become more difficult since the onset of the war.

Advertisement

“We’re even going around canvassing neighborhoods and registered Republicans are yelling out the door, ‘go away, or I’m calling the police,’” Berland said. “I find that very discouraging.”

Voters’ frustrations, he said, stem from “the war or the economy. And the economy is defined largely by energy prices.”

Across Rural America, the pain is even more acute.

Farmers in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and other agriculture-heavy states are feeling the impact of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which sent fertilizer prices skyrocketing just ahead of planting season. Some producers have had to shake up their plans last minute and plant new crops that are less reliant on fertilizer.

Advertisement

The scramble could lead to lower crop yields, which potentially means higher food prices this summer, North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue said.

Farmers have long been loyal to the GOP and Trump. But the war now poses another massive financial headache on top of the tariffs that have increased their production costs and evaporated markets abroad where they could sell their crops.

“We’ve had just a pile of uncertainty, a pile of volatility in the markets that we buy from and sell to and we’re just creating more volatility, more uncertainty as we move ahead,” Perdue said.

A chorus of farm groups — including the often Trump-aligned American Farm Bureau — petitioned the White House for a bailout last week. And the agriculture lobby is requesting an ad hoc aid package from Congress to cover the mounting fertilizer costs.

Advertisement

Monroe County, Pennsylvania, GOP chair Pete Begley acknowledged that supply chain woes and high prices are pinching some in his community. But he’s willing to offer Trump a long runway before he gets worried.

“If it turns into six months later, we’re still there, and the Ayatollah’s son is still supposedly in charge, that I think will cause concern,” Begley said. “But for now, I think people are standing by the president.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Men Over 30 Share Their Best Sex Tips

Published

on

“What you can do as a man is help guide the focus of her mind to the present moment you and her are sharing,” said Stirling Cooper, a 39 year-old sex coach.

As a young guy, wellness coach Jackson Hightower was always in a hurry – even when it came to sex.

Now 42, he’s learned that slowing down and really savoring the experience of getting to know your partner is more than worth it.

“Sex has gotten significantly better with age,” Hightower told HuffPost. “It lasts longer, there’s more time for connection, and more time to give her orgasms and pleasure.”

With 20 years of experience, you learn a lot about how to care for a woman, and that plays a major role in ensuring that you both get off.

Advertisement

“Young men rush to release. Older, more experienced men know how to set the stage for safety and real connection so she can unfurl,” he said.

Because knowledge is power, we recently asked men over 30 like Hightower to share some of their best sex tips gained from experience. Read what they had to say below.

Stop thinking your penis is the star of the show

“As a young man, I wish someone had told me that good sex wasn’t all about me and my penis. Just like most men, younger me assumed that sex was just intercourse, and to have good intercourse, your penis had to ‘perform.’ Not only did that put a lot of pressure on me to feel solely responsible for the entire experience, it also led to me singlehandedly dictating the pace of things in bed: the moment I’d start getting hard, I’d rush us on toward intercourse. And the moment I finished, we were done. As a result, I never spent very much time on foreplay (especially foreplay focusing on my partner) for fear of losing an erection.

Advertisement

“Once I realised that it wasn’t all about me – that real sex included any activity that felt good and great sex was something I co-created with my partner – it relieved so much pressure. It opened the door to putting activities back on the menu (like oral) that extend the experience and are far more pleasurable for most women. Now, I feel free to spend as much time as my partner wants on foreplay, and if I get and lose an erection while I focus on her, all I need to do is ask for her to use her hands or mouth on me to get me back in the game. Or, if I find myself getting a bit too excited mid-intercourse, I can slow things down by taking a break and focusing on her. Because ultimately, I find I always have a better time when she’s having a better time.”

Xander Marin, a 40-year-old content creator

“What you can do as a man is help guide the focus of her mind to the present moment you and her are sharing,” said Stirling Cooper, a 39 year-old sex coach.

Kathrin Ziegler via Getty Images

“What you can do as a man is help guide the focus of her mind to the present moment you and her are sharing,” said Stirling Cooper, a 39 year-old sex coach.

Work on your dirty talk

“Oftentimes, the biggest obstacle to a woman achieving an orgasm during sex is her own conscious ‘thinking’ part of her brain, the part of her mind that races with anxiety and insecurity. So, to prevent that, what you can do as a man is help guide the focus of her mind to the present moment you and her are sharing.

Advertisement

“Things like describing the sensations she’s already feeling to amplify them more, praising her – telling her how sexy she looks and feels right now – leading her through the experience by guiding her with commands like ‘bend over,’ ‘come here,’ ‘grab it,’ ‘spread them.’ These comments pull her focus into the present and allow her to enjoy sex rather than be distracted by a million anxious thoughts instead.”

Stirling Cooper, a 39-year-old sex coach

Scale back your porn watching

“I’d say, stop watching porn. It’s killing your ability to truly connect with a partner during the experience. It can also activate erectile dysfunction, performance anxiety and/or premature ejaculation. It teaches all the wrong moves and makes sex performative, which women can sense and dislike.”

Advertisement
"Give them hard and soft, rough and sweet, dominator and worshipper. Don't just play one note; master the whole scale," said Michael Chief.

Oleg Breslavtsev via Getty Images

“Give them hard and soft, rough and sweet, dominator and worshipper. Don’t just play one note; master the whole scale,” said Michael Chief.

Focus on getting the fundamentals right before you move on to kink

“How can you really satisfy a woman? Are you supposed to learn a bunch of cool tricks? I’ve done a lot of things that most people never tried: BDSM, tantric sex, threesomes, orgasm stacking. But as with all skills and disciplines, the most important thing is to master the fundamentals: anticipation and foreplay. Treat the entire process of seduction as foreplay, right from the beginning when you first lock eyes. Tease her. Elicit dopamine responses. Take her on an emotional roller coaster while providing the safety guardrails at the same time. Make her want more. Do this with both your words and your actions.

“You need to understand how important the psychological journey is for her physical pleasure. Embrace the dichotomy of women by applying dichotomous techniques in both foreplay and sex. Give them hard and soft, rough and sweet, dominator and worshipper. Don’t just play one note; master the whole scale. Do this with the fundamentals until you can craft your own art with it.”

Michael Chief, a 30-something dating coach and author of Never Lonely: The Uncensored Guide on How to Attract and Be Loved by Women.

Advertisement
"Touch for your own pleasure. Enjoy what you are doing. Communicate what you are feeling," said Steve Bodansky, 71.
“Touch for your own pleasure. Enjoy what you are doing. Communicate what you are feeling,” said Steve Bodansky, 71.

Talk about what you both want to do in bed

“Get to know her or them by being curious. Ask them questions about what their preferences are: how they like best to be touched, pressure, speed, lubricant and where they like to be touched. Most importantly, is to touch for your own pleasure. Enjoy what you are doing. Communicate what you are feeling. Ask questions that they can answer yes or no to, like would you like it lower, would you like it more to the left, would you like circles, would you like it lighter? Then respond in increments and ask again until you get it just right.”

Steve Bodansky, a 71-year-old sex educator and author of “Orgasm Matters”

Make it a goal to get her to orgasm, more than once, even

“In my early years of having sex, I focused most on my pleasure, specifically on doing what it took for me to come. Often it was short, and most times underwhelming for my partner. Now, when I make love, my favourite thing is turning it into a challenge to see how many times I can get her to orgasm, and how long those climaxes can last. Sex has turned into ‘worship sessions’ where I focus on bringing pleasure to as many parts of her body as possible.

Advertisement

“Most guys don’t realise her entire body is covered in erogenous zones just waiting to be explored with touch, kisses and your tongue. We have so many more tools at our disposal than just our cock. Sometimes I will spend over an hour in foreplay before I even enter her. The secret is to build her pleasure so much until she is begging for me to fuck her, and fuck her hard.”

Gerald Rogers, a 51-year-old author and speaker

Don’t forget aftercare

“Foreplay starts way before you even touch her body, but sex isn’t over after you’ve orgasmed. Dialled-in aftercare creates a feeling of connection post-sex, which women crave as their hormones are in bonding mode post-orgasm.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Zack Polanski ’s feud with ‘parasitic’ Daily Mail hack goes nuclear

Published

on

Zack Polanski ’s feud with ‘parasitic’ Daily Mail hack goes nuclear

On 28 March, Zack Polanski said that the Daily Mail were harassing his family members for a story. According to Polanski himself, it was clear why the gutter press were doing this — because the Greens have leaped up in the polls. Since then, his war with the Mail has taken a turn for the ridiculous, with the journo involved accusing Polanski (a Jewish man) of antisemitism:

This hasn’t gone how Nicole Lampert thought it would; largely because the feud has drawn everyone’s attention to her history of weird and degenerate behaviour.

Zack Polanski vs scum media

Firstly, let’s look at this line from the above:

Daily Mail journalists aren’t going after your family (as you are aware, there is more we could write if we were).

This line implies that they’ve been digging into his family; how else would she know there was “more we could write”?

Advertisement

Given how quickly Lampert crumbled when Polanski pushed back, we imagine she’d be an absolute mess if someone asked her family what they thought of her politics.

Lampert continued:

I’m a freelance journalist who spoke to your family members who are frightened by the Jew hate in your party. They are frightened by what you have given the green light to.

While you once fought Jew hatred, now you indulge it because, as we both see, it is popular.

Other political groups have discovered this in the past.

Advertisement

Shame on you Zack Polanski

Shame on you.

The “Jew hate” in question is opposing the genocidal actions of Israel. We’re not going to spend too long on this, because we’ve heard it all before, and no one buys it anymore:

The argument intensified as a result of Lampert’s inability to read:

Polanski later added:

Oh yes, that’s right, isn’t it — the Daily Mail backed Adolf Hitler, didn’t it:

To be fair, they did stop backing Hitler when we went to war with him. Did their politics change accordingly? Not really; they just used different words to pursue the same goals.

Oh, and talking of the Blackshirts, would you believe the shamelessness of this?

Advertisement

As people are saying, this simply doesn’t work anymore:

Some defended Lampert, including the loathsome Heidi Bachram:

Advertisement

Nicole Lampert — freelance weirdo

The problem Lampert has is her long and well-documented history of being a degenerate freak online and at work. Novara’s Rivkah Brown highlighted this:

Advertisement

We’d say this sounds like she was running her own Gestapo, but we won’t, obviously, because she’d accuse us of antisemitism.

In the following exchange, Lampert advocated for people being able to use the N-word:

We’re not sure how to introduce the following, but Lampert also put this into the world:

The above image clips off, but her final response was:

A suicide pact.

Shame

Lampert later said this to Polanski:

Advertisement

The irony is that the ‘antizionists’ in your party are the parasites. They are turning a party that once cared about the environment into a vehicle for Jew hatred. And you are giving them cover.

There’s a problem here, and it’s that many of these Anti-Zionists are Jewish.

According to her, this is antisemitic.

And as a Jewish woman, Lampert should really know better.

Shame on you, Nicole Lampert.

Advertisement

Shame on you.

Featured image via Barold

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Kemi Badenoch Called Out Over Glaring Flaw With Her Plan To Ease Energy Strains

Published

on

Kemi Badenoch Called Out Over Glaring Flaw With Her Plan To Ease Energy Strains

Kemi Badenoch was slammed for her new plan to drop Net Zero altogether during her broadcast rounds this morning.

The Tory leader claimed drilling in the North Sea would help ease the upcoming energy crisis, and dismissed the UK’s legally binding target to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 as a “slogan”.

She also claimed the country would go “bankrupt” because of the policy, which was championed by former Tory prime minister Theresa May.

Badenoch has called for the government to approve more oil and gas drilling in the UK in response to the strain the Iran war has put on global energy supplies.

Advertisement

“The first thing [the government] should do is start drilling our own oil and gas in the North Sea,” the Tory leader told Sky News. “It’s important for our energy security, our economic security, our national security, and they’re not doing [it].”

Presenter Trevor Phillips said: “That’s all very helpful, but the point is none of that oil would come on stream for years.”

He added: “I’m asking you what should happen in the next few months when this conflict is on, which is what people are worried about, what will happen between now and the summer, not what will happen next year or the year after.”

Badenoch said: “I’m not even talking about next year. I’m talking about this year.”

Advertisement

“There will be no oil coming out of Rosebank this year, you know that,” he hit back – while the Tory leader insisted gas would be accessible by this winter and that drilling would save British jobs, too.

“Governments are elected to do the right thing right now. That is not to bankrupt the country with a plan that is not working,” she told Sky News. “What we need is cheap, abundant energy – it should be clean, that means doing everything we can, nuclear, renewables, and oil and gas, too.”

Asked about the risks of fuel rationing, Badenoch said: “You’re speaking about a hypothetical. I don’t want to be in a situation where people are panic buying fuel because of speculative discussions.”

And on the BBC, presenter Laura Kuenssberg suggested Badenoch had been “misleading” people with her suggestion that this would make bills cheaper.

Advertisement

But the Tory leader claimed that is not what she was saying.

She said: “No, I’m not saying that once you drill oil and gas in the North Sea, it’s going to go straight on to your bills.

“No one has said that, but it is all related. And pretending that it is not related is very dishonest from a government that has a terrible energy policy.”

Labour’s chair Anna Turley slammed Badenoch’s broadcast performances, saying: “Kemi Badenoch’s energy policy has completely fallen apart. She’s been forced to admit her central energy intervention won’t bring people’s bills down. And she can’t say whether she’d support families who might need help.

Advertisement

“Badenoch wanted to send British troops head first into a war without thinking about the consequences. Now she’s putting forward energy plans that she freely admits won’t help Brits struggling with their bills. She is completely out of her depth and proving once again that she’s unfit for high office.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

ADHD Makes Firings And Job Loss Much More Likely

Published

on

ADHD Makes Firings And Job Loss Much More Likely

Some research suggests that workers with ADHD are 60% more likely to be fired and 30% more likely to report chronic employment issues than those without ADHD.

And according to a new survey conducted by UK ADHD clinic Focused, run in partnership with the ADHD Chatter Podcast, just under half of people asked (47%) said they’ve been fired or lost jobs partly due to their ADHD.

59% of people surveyed with ADHD hadn’t told their employer about it, meanwhile, and 77% said that ADHD had negatively affected their performance at work.

Workers may be in a catch-22

Advertisement

Nurse practitioner and clinical lead at Focused, Danielle Mulligan, explained that though these stats are “sad,” they’re “probably not too surprising for many people with ADHD”.

One in five neurodiverse workers has faced discrimination or harassment related to their disability at work.

“It’s common for symptoms like inattentiveness to make it seem like someone is disengaged in a conversation, which could easily not play well in meetings or in general workplace settings,” Mulligan told us.

Additionally, “Impulsivity and emotional dysregulation could escalate a difference of opinion into a more heated disagreement, which in an extreme case could turn unprofessional. And poor timekeeping might lead to repeated lateness that reaches the point of dismissal.”

Advertisement

When these pile up, they might lead to a negative perception of a worker – particularly, Mulligan said, if their ADHD has not been disclosed and/or reasonable adjustments have not been put into place.

But speaking to HuffPost UK previously, career psychologist Dr George Sik said that many people who delay or avoid telling their employer about their ADHD are doing so to “protect themselves”.

“There’s still a real fear of being judged as less capable or more difficult to manage, even when someone is performing well. For a lot of people, waiting feels safer than risking the label being misunderstood.

“However, when it’s starting to affect your workload or wellbeing, that might be a sign that staying silent is costing more than speaking up”.

Advertisement

For her part, Mulligan said, “While it’s up to the employee to tell their employer about their diagnosis, it’s probable that many employers could do more to make sharing this info easier, and less riddled with feelings of uncertainty.”

12% of those surveyed said ADHD had a positive effect on their work

Just over 11% of people with ADHD surveyed said that ADHD had no effect on their work, while 12% said it had a positive effect.

“The phrase ‘ADHD is my superpower’ is one that we’re starting to hear more of now that awareness of the condition is increasing and people are beginning to understand it better,” Mulligan shared.

Advertisement

“Due to their different way of thinking, many people with ADHD take an alternative approach to solving problems, thinking ‘outside of the box’ to overcome obstacles in a task.”

It’s also common for people with ADHD to excel at creative tasks, she added.

“Hyperactivity symptoms can provide someone with the bursts of energy they need to be more productive, or bring enthusiasm into a meeting or group activity. And hyperfocus – which many people with ADHD experience – can mean that someone is able to complete a complex, intensive or fiddly task in a swift and methodical manner.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Senior MP Delivers Brutal Reality Check To Trump As He Slates Nato

Published

on

Senior MP Delivers Brutal Reality Check To Trump As He Slates Nato

A senior MP has called out Donald Trump after he again accused Nato of not supporting the US in its time of need.

The US president has lambasted the defence alliance repeatedly as its member states have refused to get involved in his offensive action against Iran.

He has repeated his false claim that Nato has never been there for the US and threatened to pull out of the alliance altogether.

Actually, the only time the mutual defence clause of Article 5 has been activated was following the 9/11 attacks in New York.

Advertisement

Multiple countries, including the UK, sent troops to war in Afghanistan on America’s behalf for nearly 20 years.

So Tory MP Alicia Kearns, who sits as the shadow national security minister, nit out at the president on X.

She wrote: “As a British MP I can tell you what ‘showing up’ looks like.

“It looks like 457 British soldiers who died in Afghanistan.

Advertisement

“Nato has only ever gone to war for one country. Yours.

“The question isn’t whether Nato showed up, it’s whether we forgive you for pretending otherwise.”

Her remarks come after Trump provocatively claimed on Friday: “Nato made a terrible mistake when they wouldn’t send a small amount of military armaments, just even acknowledge what we were doing for the world taking on Iran.”

He continued: “I think a tremendous mistake was when Nato just wasn’t there. They just weren’t there.

Advertisement

“They take a lot of money from the United States.

We spend billions of dollars a year on Nato.

“Hundreds protecting them! We would have always been there for them.

“But, now, based on their actions, I guess we don’t have to be, do we?”

Advertisement

He added: “Why would we be there for them if they’re not there for us?”

As a British MP I can tell you what “showing up” looks like.

It looks like 457 British soldiers who died in Afghanistan.

NATO has only ever gone to war for one country. Yours.

The question isn’t whether NATO showed up, it’s whether we forgive you for pretending otherwise. https://t.co/tu5RAHzRdP

Advertisement

— Alicia Kearns MP (@aliciakearns) March 28, 2026

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

UK Adults Increasingly Spend On Ageing Parents

Published

on

UK Adults Increasingly Spend On Ageing Parents

Chances are you’ve heard of “the bank of mum and dad,” or adults relying on their parents for anything from house down-payments to holidays.

But the “reverse bank of mum and dad,” which sees adult children spending on their ageing parents, is a growing phenomenon, says James Mulvaney, Head of Digital at Clifton Private Finance.

Already, 55% of UK adults with living parents financially help, or expect to help, them in retirement. Only 45% of adults in midlife (45-54 years old) are optimistic about their parents’ finances, a figure that drops to 2% among 18-24-year-olds.

Why has the “bank of mum and dad” reversed?

Advertisement

“Several factors are driving this shift,” Mulvaney said.

“Rising care costs and the wider cost of living crisis have made retirement much more expensive, while many older homeowners are discovering that their pensions may not stretch as far as they once expected.”

Then, investment platform Ageon noted, there’s the fact that people are living longer lives. That means that savings, investments, and pensions may have to go further than expected.

“At the same time, families are recognising that housing decisions can play a major role in supporting older relatives,” Mulvaney added.

Advertisement

While the parents of over-50s may have benefited from lower house prices in their youth, parents of younger adults may have been part of a pricier housing market, which offers less return on investment.

Housing is the biggest source of household wealth in the UK (40%), followed by private pension wealth (35%).

“For many households, helping parents navigate retirement is becoming just as important as helping younger generations onto the property ladder,” said Mulvaney.

“And with housing playing such a central role in family finances, property is likely to remain at the heart of how families support one another for years to come.”

Advertisement

How can I prepare for these costs?

Mulvaney told us communication is key.

“One of the most effective steps you can take to help your older parents is reviewing their retirement finances together,” he shared.

That could involve reviewing their monthly outgoings, planning for care costs, and/or a simple budget.

Advertisement

It might also be worth discussing downsizing, which can “release equity from a larger home while also reducing maintenance costs and household bills”.

Lastly, Mulvaney said, “It’s also worth checking whether parents are claiming all the financial support they are entitled to. Recent DWP figures suggest almost one million pensioner households are missing out on an average of around £2,600 a year in Pension Credit, so checking eligibility can be one of the most valuable steps families take.

“Benefits such as Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Reduction, and Winter Fuel Payments can make a meaningful difference to retirees on lower incomes.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Minister Slams Questions About Morgan McSweeney Phone Saga

Published

on

Minister Slams Questions About Morgan McSweeney Phone Saga

Bridget Phillipson has claimed questions around the theft of Morgan McSweeney’s phone are drifting into “conspiracy theory territory”.

The cabinet minister was defending Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff as the government is facing further pressure to disclose all of its communications around Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington.

McSweeney phoned the Metropolitan Police on October 20 last year to say his iPhone had been snatched out of his hand in Westminster.

In a transcript released by the police, McSweeney did not tell them who he was or why the phone contained highly-sensitive information.

Advertisement

He also mistakenly gave the call handler the wrong street name for where the theft took place.

The phone’s disappearance meant it was not possible to access any potential communications between the PM’s former top aide and his close friend Mandelson, who is in disgrace over his association with late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The theft has triggered intense scrutiny across Westminster about the timing of events.

On Sky News, presenter Trevor Phillips asked Phillipson: “Why is Morgan McSweeney the only person in the modern world who doesn’t have his messages automatically backed up to the cloud so we could recover them and see what traffic there was between him and our former ambassador to the United States?”

Advertisement

Phillipson said the “question was a bit of a reach”, adding: “It’s hyperbole and you know it.”

Phillips insisted the question was “perfectly straightforward”, before asking if she backed up her own messages.

“I follow all of the guidance on what is required,” the minister said. “What happened here, which we all know, is that Morgan McSweeney was mugged, reported that to the police, followed all of the processes that was asked of him.

“I do think some of this wider coverage is drifting into conspiracy theory territory here.”

Advertisement

The presenter said he was not questioning any of that, but was “just wondering how it is this particular set of exchanges seems to be the only thing in the 21st Century that isn’t backed up somewhere”.

“Again, that’s hyperbole and you know it,” Phillipson said, visibly irritated. “Come on, to say he’s the ‘only person’ – it’s ridiculous and you know that.”

She said McSweeney is providing any material required, while the government “is complying with the humble address, providing information that isn’t needed, has been asked”.

“All ministers will also be complying with what is asked of us,” she added.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025