Reform’s Danny Kruger criticises UK’s ‘totally unregulated sexual economy’

[SerendipityJane]

Reform’s Danny Kruger criticises UK’s ‘totally unregulated sexual economy’
Former Conservative laments divorce changes and says Reform UK will pursue policies to boost birthrate

The UK is “suffering from having a totally unregulated sexual economy”, the Reform MP Danny Kruger has said, and he indicated he expected the party to have a “limited but important role” in resetting sexual culture.

Kruger said Reform UK had a “pronatalist ambition” and would seek policies to encourage people to have more children, including exploring changes to the tax system to make payments based on households rather than individuals.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/24/reform-danny-kruger-uk-totally-unregulated-sexual-economy

The headline made me think it was a thread about prostitution.

"Sexual economy" = tax breaks for the right kind of people having the right kind of sex?

"AI" suggested there was nothing in the discussion that precluded sex inspectors.

I am sure there is a queue forming as I speak. Let's hope it starts moving before feet stick to the ground.

“Marriage traditionally was the means by which sexual relations between men and women were regulated, and I think we are suffering from having a totally unregulated sexual economy.”

Wtf is he on about. Does he mean “unregulated” or “economy”?

Wait, I thought they were worried about overcrowding on their little island? Now they want more people?

An "AI" summary (noting the poor prose) when asked :

"Does this rule out a tax on intercourse that does not result in pregnancy"

"Yes"

(Admittedly I had limited the reply to one word).

White people

Having children is a natural outcome of, and an instinctive drive within, male- female relationhips on Planet Earth. In that respect we are no different to any other creature.

No fault divorce is a red herring. People just used to lie and claim adultery previously, so linking it to the importance of vows is stupid.

No one should be telling females whether they should or shouldn't have more babies.
Farage hails Tate as a good egg.
A reform government is a very scary prospect

How lovely. Another old Etonian telling women what to do.
This one wants to return us to a time before the sexual revolution. The twat wasn't even born when it happened.

Farage has said what he knows about women he's learned from 'getting so many of them pregnant'.

Reform do not have women's best interests at heart. They blow their own trumpets so much for knowing what a woman is but the only reason they need to know is to make sure she's pregnant (so long as she's white).

Twat.

In the full interview, he talks up the whole Big Society thing. Women's unpaid labour.

Yes, white people like Suella Braverman - you know, the one who said multiculturalism didn’t work 🙄

I think 'sexual economy' here is actually a metaphor. Think of it like this:

How is male sexual desire to be channelled in a way that produces the best outcomes for girls and women, and for society as a whole? a) by removing any incentive for men to commit to lasting relationships with women and encouraging a view of sexuality as purely transactional; or b) using access to sex as the price of commitment to a woman and supporting her children?

It's not that I think there is an either/or choice between these two -- rather that they are two ends of a continuum. But looking around, it seems to me we are nearer the first than the second. Consequence- and commitment-free sex is viewed as an unproblematic good, satisfaction of desire becomes a moral virtue, and we see the results: pornsick men, 'body count', booty calls and girls made to give into unpleasant and dangerous sexual practices, young people not forming relationships, and collapsing birth rate. That is what Kruger means by an 'unregulated sexual economy'.

Granted there are bad marriages and violent and abusive men, of course that is true. But it is also true, on a population level, that marriage makes people (both men and women) happier and healthier, and that children born to married parents do better across all measures. That is what Kruger means by a 'regulated sexual economy'.

Whether getting people to move from one end of the spectrum to the other is within the power of any government is a moot question. But I admire him for asking it.

that children born to married parents do better across all measures

This isn't quite what it seems.

Children in families with 2 adults nearly always have acess to more resources and so are more able to take advantage of the system.

Too often single partent families are mothers left to care for children, and consequently because most women earn less, etc., etc., For instance one of the biggest disadvantages is having to move from communities they and their children have support networks as they can no longer live there.

But on the other hand based on anecedotal "evidence" I think Reform men are stuck mentally somewhere in the 19th century.

There is an increase in single women, no longer thinking they have to wait for "Mr Right" to turn up so as to have children but are taking the decision to have a child on their own.

Even stranger is the number of potentially future grandmothers who seem totally supportive of their daughters doing this.

Who knows we may be entering the era of female families and men finding they are becoming more and more redundant.

Not that the mentality of Reform could understand this. The very notion that this backward men would understand that women aren't interested in them and their unreconstructured view of the world!

I think the comment makes sense.

Essentially, he is saying marriage has been the way, legally, that society has dealt with the fact that reproductive role means the bests interests of men and women and children don't always immediate align.

Men can sow their wild oats all over and just hope some of their DNA is successfully passed on. But childbearing has real consequences for women, and by extension children, from a health and economic standpoint.

Marriage historically has been how society legally obligates men to provide resources for their offspring and their mothers, and also morally compels them to provide human support.

He's suggesting I think that having men who aren't providing for their children, and supporting the mothers of those children, is bad for the country.

Evidence that children of married parents do better across all measures:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/new-research-confirms-having-married-parents-helps-kids-get-ahead

https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/newsroom/new-report-family-structure-still-matters

and review of research here: https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf

So what, the point is that obviously if there are 2 adults the opportunities for children are better.

But that doesn't mean that "outcomes" are the measure we should use.

Too often this construct means women are worse off.

Why should women sacrifice themselves to make men feel they are needed.

If there are any statistics that show how much men as husbands and fathers make the situation better, then arguing for it would be credible.

If men continue to not reform themselves to a change society where women no long see themselves as an appendate to men as is increasingly so, then having a man as a husband and father is just goint to cease to be the norm.

Almost the Reform position is hypocritical. It is men who want sex without ties of committment.

When any male politician from any political party stands up and says we need to talk about why men are the problem in society instead of making out the problem is somehow women always being victims. As though the men victimising them aren't the issue!

Sorry forgot to add this.

This is the price women pay https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5495585-mens-final-salary-pensions-nearly-double-womens-at-state-pension-age

And the idea that women should only have acess to income via their relationship is taking women back 100 years.

One of the early WLM campaigns was to ensure that child benefit was alwasy paid to the mother.

What an incredibly weird way of wording this, I thought he was talking about legalising prostitution.

The population we already have is massively reliant on imported food and fuel, teeters on the edge of water shortage every time there's a dry summer, and is driving the non human inhabitants of the country towards extinction. Blithering irresponsible idiocy. He should be ashamed of himself.

I think you should try reading the research, Iwanttoretire. It shows that, at a population level, marriage is better for women, it is better for men, and it is better for children: married people are better off, happier and healthier.

I don't think Kruger thinks women are the problem, and I'm sure he thinks that unrestrained male sexuality is a problem. But he does think that men and women need each other, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

From a FWR perspective, the proposal to move taxation from an individual to a household model might be the most significant part of the interview, especially as it appears to be a concrete policy rather than just Kruger saying what he thinks. That is a subject that has come up a lot on MN over the years!

He’s not saying “we’re going to reform the CMS and give them some actual power” though is he.

Notably not!