If Biden does stand, the Democratic race will be just as interesting - but in a different way - to the GOP.
If Biden enters the race, it will be taken as 'permission' for other serious Dems to jump in too. The problem is that their bench of talent with a national profile (other than its very old and worn leadership) is pretty thin. I wonder if Bloomberg will register as a Dem in order to be able to run.
Either Hillary or Biden will win the nomination and there closest rival is likely to be Sanders. Bloomberg was a Republican until recently and spoke at the 2004 GOP convention, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination
If you have a look at the audience of LD conferences - you won't find many BME attendees either. For whatever reason, they don't seem to have traction with this group.
I don't see why the Tories seem to get so excited about having a female leader. Half of these same people have a mental breakdown over Cameron's policy on the gender-pay-gap etc. Some seem more obsessed over the symbolism of having a female leader as opposed to actually doing things to help women in the country.
I personally don't see either Patel or Greening being elected as Tory leader. Patel is far too hard-line, and it looks like Greening's career has faded into the dusk. I think a good bet for the Tories would be Anna Soubry, or Theresa May - (I think May is probably the best HS we've had in years) but I don't see the Tories going for them, either.
I should say that Theresa May is also an evil feminist as well - I don't know how that would go down with the Tory grassroots.
Equality of opportunity, aspiration and upward mobility are at the very core of Conservative political economic theory. But, as with any party, the Tories are not monolithic in their views on all political issues and there are bound to be some contradictions between the views of some elements of the party and the party position on other policy planks. Certainly there are some who hold more outdated views on women, but just look at Labour and the LDs to put that in perspective.
On Labour the only one I've really seen with 'outdated' views is Austin Mitchell (awful man). On everything else, Labour appear to have been consistent in their advocation and support for women's rights, ethnic minority equality, and gay rights for years.
It's the LDs who are the biggest joke. No ethnic minority MP? Really? And the Renard crisis....
The LDs have had a BME MP. Parrmjit Singh Gill won the Leicester South by election in 2004 after Jim Marshall died. He lost to Peter Soulsby in 2005 though.
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
From a purely political/strategic perspective, Boris as next leader seems like a no-brainer to me, he is the only Tory who can reach people that Cameron can't (young people especially seem to love him). However there is the not inconsiderable matter of whether Tory MPs think he's actually up to the job of being PM, of course.
Not if you read the data. He has very little advantage (possibly even a negative effect) north of the Watford Gap
Also it should be said Christabel stood for the Women's Party, and Sylvia Pankhurst was a communist! And Emmeline was (it seems prior to the 1920s) a member of the Independent Labour party.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes
Thatcher being leader wasn't symbolism; it was real leadership from a real woman.
It was symbolism in the sense that Tories use it to prove they've always been this party of equality....which is odd, given all the reforms and modernisation Cameron had to do to prove the Tories were an inclusive party.
I have to stick up for the Tories on this one - they seem to bring it out to prove things, when they are continually accused of things. While having the first female MP and PM does not prove their policies have been definitively better for women, or that they are now, it does undermine accusations that they are definitively worse automatically just because they are Tories. It's a defensive measure from Tories rather an offensive one
I hope the polls are still showing a tight three way race. Come on, Canada, you can do this. And let's see if the under predicting the Right will continue. I can easily see the polls in 2020 reporting poorly for the Tories, and it being ignore because polls are so often wrong, only to be right that time, and it would be pretty hilarious to see Tories being confident because of predicted poor polling, rather than because of positive polling in their favour.
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader for over a century (and PM). Youngest leader for over a century (and youngest PM) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish) The first Catholic leader (officially), The first to be born outside the UK, etc etc
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During the Cold War, all the Commie leaders were blokes weren't they? There never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
Mrs T being a man in a dress must rank as one of the most pathetic arguments ever made by lefties who seek to have it written out of political equality history (of which Plato is not one). None would dare consider any person current alive "not a proper woman" in any other scenario...
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader for over a century (and PM). Youngest leader for over a century (and youngest PM) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish) The first Catholic leader (officially), The first to be born outside the UK, etc etc
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During the Cold War, all the Commie leaders were blokes weren't they? There never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader for over a century (and PM). Youngest leader for over a century (and youngest PM) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish) The first Catholic leader (officially), The first to be born outside the UK, etc etc
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During the Cold War, all the Commie leaders were blokes weren't they? There never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
Also it should be said Christabel stood for the Women's Party, and Sylvia Pankhurst was a communist! And Emmeline was (it seems prior to the 1920s) a member of the Independent Labour party.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes
Thatcher being leader wasn't symbolism; it was real leadership from a real woman.
It was symbolism in the sense that Tories use it to prove they've always been this party of equality....which is odd, given all the reforms and modernisation Cameron had to do to prove the Tories were an inclusive party.
I have to stick up for the Tories on this one - they seem to bring it out to prove things, when they are continually accused of things. While having the first female MP and PM does not prove their policies have been definitively better for women, or that they are now, it does undermine accusations that they are definitively worse automatically just because they are Tories. It's a defensive measure from Tories rather an offensive one
I hope the polls are still showing a tight three way race. Come on, Canada, you can do this. And let's see if the under predicting the Right will continue. I can easily see the polls in 2020 reporting poorly for the Tories, and it being ignore because polls are so often wrong, only to be right that time, and it would be pretty hilarious to see Tories being confident because of predicted poor polling, rather than because of positive polling in their favour.
I don't think they are out to get BMEs/women, I just don't think they've really cared that much r.e equality. They believe in equality of opportunity, but I don't think they've recognised (until recently) the structural issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia that can to a barrier to progress for many.
If she was a man, how could she have had Mark and Carol?!!
Branding Mrs T as a "man", or Tony Blair as a "Tory" appeal to folk who have the simplified view of life that Left wing=Good, Right Wing=Bad. Blair was a bad man so he can't really have been Labour. Thatcher was a bad Tory, so she can't really have been a woman.
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
Mrs T being a man in a dress must rank as one of the most pathetic arguments ever made by lefties who seek to have it written out of political equality history (of which Plato is not one). None would dare consider any person current alive "not a proper woman" in any other scenario...
Mrs T being a man in a dress must rank as one of the most pathetic arguments ever made by lefties who seek to have it written out of political equality history (of which Plato is not one). None would dare consider any person current alive "not a proper woman" in any other scenario...
Also it should be said Christabel stood for the Women's Party, and Sylvia Pankhurst was a communist! And Emmeline was (it seems prior to the 1920s) a member of the Independent Labour party.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes
Thatcher being leader wasn't symbolism; it was real leadership from a real woman.
It was symbolism in the sense that Tories use it to prove they've always been this party of equality....which is odd, given all the reforms and modernisation Cameron had to do to prove the Tories were an inclusive party.
I have to stick up for the Tories on this one - they seem to bring it out to prove things, when they are continually accused of things. While having the first female MP and PM does not prove their policies have been definitively better for women, or that they are now, it does undermine accusations that they are definitively worse automatically just because they are Tories. It's a defensive measure from Tories rather an offensive one
I hope the polls are still showing a tight three way race. Come on, Canada, you can do this. And let's see if the under predicting the Right will continue. I can easily see the polls in 2020 reporting poorly for the Tories, and it being ignore because polls are so often wrong, only to be right that time, and it would be pretty hilarious to see Tories being confident because of predicted poor polling, rather than because of positive polling in their favour.
I don't think they are out to get BMEs/women, I just don't think they've really cared that much r.e equality. They believe in equality of opportunity, but I don't think they've recognised (until recently) the structural issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia that can to a barrier to progress for many.
I think that's a fair view to hold, even if it is wrong (I do not know either way), although I do not begrudge the over defensive pointing to the likes of Astor and Thatcher when people do make the argument that Tories are out to get women, or anyone else. Labour seem not to be accused of going after specific populations segments in the same fashion, I presume as their 'targets' are more likely to be based on wealth, in the eyes of their opponents, although UKIP and the Tories have tried to make headway with 'Labour hates the WWC' I suppose.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes. And if you seriously think the left have been ineffective r.e women's BMEs, and gay rights....well there's not much to say. Without the suffragettes, and suffragists, Mrs Thatcher would never have been leader of the Conservative party, because women wouldn't have even gotten the vote in the first place. I don't think it also takes a genius to know that Emily Davidson wasn't getting trampled over by a horse to votes for horses.
Who was the party who passed to act that made abortions legal? Who was the party who passed the equal pay act? It certainly wasn't the Tories.
And as for having the first Jewish leader - it certainly did nothing to stop anti-semitism in this country, which was still a huge issue even during WW2. In fact, wasn't it right-wing newspapers such as the Mail who spent time supporting fascists and freaking out about Jewish refugees coming to this country? And the Right are the 'real' equality people....yeah right.
Pushing my buttons? Your buttons appear to pushed.
The most widespread and virulent anti-Semitism, sexism and sectarianism today comes from the the less integrated parts of the Muslim community. It took a Conservative Prime Minister to come out and criticise it: the Labour Party was unwilling to say anything despite 13 years in power. In fact, they often indulged it, such as by hosting gender segregated hustings.
Also it should be said Christabel stood for the Women's Party, and Sylvia Pankhurst was a communist! And Emmeline was (it seems prior to the 1920s) a member of the Independent Labour party.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes
Thatcher being leader wasn't symbolism; it was real leadership from a real woman.
It was symbolism in the sense that Tories use it to prove they've always been this party of equality....which is odd, given all the reforms and modernisation Cameron had to do to prove the Tories were an inclusive party.
I have to stick up for the Tories on this one - they seem to bring it out to prove things, when they are continually accused of things. While having the first female MP and PM does not prove their policies have been definitively better for women, or that they are now, it does undermine accusations that they are definitively worse automatically just because they are Tories. It's a defensive measure from Tories rather an offensive one
I hope the polls are still showing a tight three way race. Come on, Canada, you can do this. And let's see if the under predicting the Right will continue. I can easily see the polls in 2020 reporting poorly for the Tories, and it being ignore because polls are so often wrong, only to be right that time, and it would be pretty hilarious to see Tories being confident because of predicted poor polling, rather than because of positive polling in their favour.
I think the most likely outcome is a minority NDP government, most polls have them neck and neck with the Tories with the Liberals a little further back. Trudeau has too big an ego to go into coalition with Mulcair, but he could back him on confidence and supply. The Tories polled 39.6% in 2011 when they won a majority, they are now polling about 28-33% in most polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_federal_election
Also it should be said Christabel stood for the Women's Party, and Sylvia Pankhurst was a communist! And Emmeline was (it seems prior to the 1920s) a member of the Independent Labour party.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes
Thatcher being leader wasn't symbolism; it was real leadership from a real woman.
It was symbolism in the sense that Tories use it to prove they've always been this party of equality....which is odd, given all the reforms and modernisation Cameron had to do to prove the Tories were an inclusive party.
I have to stick up for the Tories on this one - they seem to bring it out to prove things, when they are continually accused of things. While having the first female MP and PM does not prove their policies have been definitively better for women, or that they are now, it does undermine accusations that they are definitively worse automatically just because they are Tories. It's a defensive measure from Tories rather an offensive one
I hope the polls are still showing a tight three way race. Come on, Canada, you can do this. And let's see if the under predicting the Right will continue. I can easily see the polls in 2020 reporting poorly for the Tories, and it being ignore because polls are so often wrong, only to be right that time, and it would be pretty hilarious to see Tories being confident because of predicted poor polling, rather than because of positive polling in their favour.
I don't think they are out to get BMEs/women, I just don't think they've really cared that much r.e equality. They believe in equality of opportunity, but I don't think they've recognised (until recently) the structural issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia that can to a barrier to progress for many.
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
How is Section 28 a red-herring? Of course it negates the other stuff - the Tories have only begun to try to proof how inclusive they are of gay people under Cameron - someone, who incidentally used to support Section 28. Even Gay Marriage was symbolism, with quite a few Tory MPs - including Nicky Morgan, and Philip Hammond AFAIC - all not supportive of (Morgan has recently said that she'd had an epiphany and 'changed her mind'). It was Labour who step the steps that led towards Gay Marriage with civil partnerships.
I don't see why the Tories seem to get so excited about having a female leader. Half of these same people have a mental breakdown over Cameron's policy on the gender-pay-gap etc. Some seem more obsessed over the symbolism of having a female leader as opposed to actually doing things to help women in the country.
I personally don't see either Patel or Greening being elected as Tory leader. Patel is far too hard-line, and it looks like Greening's career has faded into the dusk. I think a good bet for the Tories would be Anna Soubry, or Theresa May - (I think May is probably the best HS we've had in years) but I don't see the Tories going for them, either.
I should say that Theresa May is also an evil feminist as well - I don't know how that would go down with the Tory grassroots.
Anna Soubry will never be Conservative leader. Not only is she supportive of European integration, she does it in a way where she acts like anyone who is Eurosceptic is xenophobic and bigoted. Conservatives get fed up with hearing that from the other side, let alone our own leader.
Theresa May is more complicated. She's very good on some things, and has been suitably tough on immigration reforms. On the other hand, the Home Office seems to have one cock-up after another, and they can not all be blamed on what's been left over from her predecessor. I do worry that she has struck the wrong balance on security versus liberty issues when it comes to terrorism, when it comes to government surveillance. The European Arrest Warrant particularly seemed like a travesty of justice, if you look at what happened to Andrew Symeou.
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
How is Section 28 a red-herring? Of course it negates the other stuff - the Tories have only begun to try to proof how inclusive they are of gay people under Cameron - someone, who incidentally used to support Section 28. Even Gay Marriage was symbolism, with quite a few Tory MPs - including Nicky Morgan, and Philip Hammond AFAIC - all not supportive of (Morgan has recently said that she'd had an epiphany and 'changed her mind'). It was Labour who step the steps that led towards Gay Marriage with civil partnerships.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader for over a century (and PM). Youngest leader for over a century (and youngest PM) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish) The first Catholic leader (officially), The first to be born outside the UK, etc etc
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During the Cold War, all the Commie leaders were blokes weren't they? There never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes. And if you seriously think the left have been ineffective r.e women's BMEs, and gay rights....well there's not much to say. Without the suffragettes, and suffragists, Mrs Thatcher would never have been leader of the Conservative party, because women wouldn't have even gotten the vote in the first place. I don't think it also takes a genius to know that Emily Davidson wasn't getting trampled over by a horse to votes for horses.
Who was the party who passed to act that made abortions legal? Who was the party who passed the equal pay act? It certainly wasn't the Tories.
And as for having the first Jewish leader - it certainly did nothing to stop anti-semitism in this country, which was still a huge issue even during WW2. In fact, wasn't it right-wing newspapers such as the Mail who spent time supporting fascists and freaking out about Jewish refugees coming to this country? And the Right are the 'real' equality people....yeah right.
Pushing my buttons? Your buttons appear to pushed.
The most widespread and virulent anti-Semitism, sexism and sectarianism today comes from the the less integrated parts of the Muslim community. It took a Conservative Prime Minister to come out and criticise it: the Labour Party was unwilling to say anything despite 13 years in power. In fact, they often indulged it, such as by hosting gender segregated hustings.
I don't agree with the nonsense gender segregated hustings - but that is only one example I've seen, so hardly 'often indulging'.
Cameron is also one minute being critical of the Muslim community on sexism/anti-semitism, and on the other hand getting all sensitive on whether the BBC call ISIS 'Islamic State' and saying it's offensive to Muslims.
If Biden does stand, the Democratic race will be just as interesting - but in a different way - to the GOP.
If Biden enters the race, it will be taken as 'permission' for other serious Dems to jump in too. The problem is that their bench of talent with a national profile (other than its very old and worn leadership) is pretty thin. I wonder if Bloomberg will register as a Dem in order to be able to run.
Either Hillary or Biden will win the nomination and there closest rival is likely to be Sanders. Bloomberg was a Republican until recently and spoke at the 2004 GOP convention, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination
I will say BME cultures on the whole are far more sexist and homophobic. There, I said it.
I would imagine that's not consistent across all ethnic minorities. I imagine the ethnic Swedish and Brazillian populations in the UK are more tolerant than the white British population.
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
the Tories have only begun to try to proof how inclusive they are of gay people under Cameron - someone, who incidentally used to support Section 28. .
That, I think, is definitely a red herring. I quite admire Cameron on this precisely because it was a fight he did not have to pick with his party but he did anyway, proving more than anything else that it must have been a principled decision - pointing out that his opinions used to be different is often used as an attempt to undermine the action taken later, as though it doesn't really count. A good deed done is not erased because a bad deed or thought happened previously, even if it does not erase that bad deed or thought either. Labour deserve great credit for the steps toward gay marriage, but it was still a Tory PM who enacted it. He cannot claim sole credit for such a thing, he was building on the past, but the party can rightly be proud (if they so choose) that they still did it when they could have so easily not bothered (and given they won this year - not principally on grounds of social policies, although who knows how things might have panned out if Cameron were a 'scarier' PM), gay marriage might not have been enacted until post 2020 at least. Section 28 is an important footnote to the history of the party, but overcoming that is a grander triumph than if it never had any foibles to overcome at all.
I will say BME cultures on the whole are far more sexist and homophobic. There, I said it.
No more sexist and homophobic than Catholic, Orthodox, Traditional Jewish or Evangelist Christian cultures. All of them are conservative cultures, and it's conservative cultures that tend to be sexist and homophobic.
P.S. The really decent, inclusive and tolerant people are all Whigs in my opinion.
I will say BME cultures on the whole are far more sexist and homophobic. There, I said it.
I would imagine that's not consistent across all ethnic minorities. I imagine the ethnic Swedish and Brazillian populations in the UK are more tolerant than the white British population.
Let me clarify - I was too polite to say "non-white"
You're moving all over the place here. We've gone from Tories aren't big on females to Well She Wasn't Really A Tory, And They Didn't Change The Rules to Section 28 and gay marriage.
Section 28 was from memory largely a reaction to what was a very noisy gay rights period in time, when quite a lot of people were concerned that the Left's desire to stuff the issue down their throats was OTT.
Now - whatever the merits, it was a real concern in the minds of enough people to get S28 in place. IIRC nothing ever happened as a result of it. Happy to be corrected as ever.
It doesn't exercise me - it's one of those totemic things that gets wheeled out despite being from 1988.
@Plato The link says: snip snip as with ideology snip
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
How is Section 28 a red-herring? Of course it negates the other stuff - the Tories have only begun to try to proof how inclusive they are of gay people under Cameron - someone, who incidentally used to support Section 28. Even Gay Marriage was symbolism, with quite a few Tory MPs - including Nicky Morgan, and Philip Hammond AFAIC - all not supportive of (Morgan has recently said that she'd had an epiphany and 'changed her mind'). It was Labour who step the steps that led towards Gay Marriage with civil partnerships.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes. And if you seriously think the left have been ineffective r.e women's BMEs, and gay rights....well there's not much to say. Without the suffragettes, and suffragists, Mrs Thatcher would never have been leader of the Conservative party, because women wouldn't have even gotten the vote in the first place. I don't think it also takes a genius to know that Emily Davidson wasn't getting trampled over by a horse to votes for horses.
Who was the party who passed to act that made abortions legal? Who was the party who passed the equal pay act? It certainly wasn't the Tories.
And as for having the first Jewish leader - it certainly did nothing to stop anti-semitism in this country, which was still a huge issue even during WW2. In fact, wasn't it right-wing newspapers such as the Mail who spent time supporting fascists and freaking out about Jewish refugees coming to this country? And the Right are the 'real' equality people....yeah right.
Pushing my buttons? Your buttons appear to pushed.
The most widespread and virulent anti-Semitism, sexism and sectarianism today comes from the the less integrated parts of the Muslim community. It took a Conservative Prime Minister to come out and criticise it: the Labour Party was unwilling to say anything despite 13 years in power. In fact, they often indulged it, such as by hosting gender segregated hustings.
Cameron is also one minute being critical of the Muslim community on sexism/anti-semitism, and on the other hand getting all sensitive on whether the BBC call ISIS 'Islamic State' and saying it's offensive to Muslims.
Yes, I think that was 'distract from the main issues' week or something, which so often seems the case when people are making hyperbolic arguments around terminology rather than the issues behind them.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes. And if you seriously think the left have been ineffective r.e women's BMEs, and gay rights....well there's not much to say. Without the suffragettes, and suffragists, Mrs Thatcher would never have been leader of the Conservative party, because women wouldn't have even gotten the vote in the first place. I don't think it also takes a genius to know that Emily Davidson wasn't getting trampled over by a horse to votes for horses.
Who was the party who passed to act that made abortions legal? Who was the party who passed the equal pay act? It certainly wasn't the Tories.
And as for having the first Jewish leader - it certainly did nothing to stop anti-semitism in this country, which was still a huge issue even during WW2. In fact, wasn't it right-wing newspapers such as the Mail who spent time supporting fascists and freaking out about Jewish refugees coming to this country? And the Right are the 'real' equality people....yeah right.
Pushing my buttons? Your buttons appear to pushed.
The most widespread and virulent anti-Semitism, sexism and sectarianism today comes from the the less integrated parts of the Muslim community. It took a Conservative Prime Minister to come out and criticise it: the Labour Party was unwilling to say anything despite 13 years in power. In fact, they often indulged it, such as by hosting gender segregated hustings.
I don't agree with the nonsense gender segregated hustings - but that is only one example I've seen, so hardly 'often indulging'.
Cameron is also one minute being critical of the Muslim community on sexism/anti-semitism, and on the other hand getting all sensitive on whether the BBC call ISIS 'Islamic State' and saying it's offensive to Muslims.
The gender segregated hustings was just one example, but I don't think it's any secret that Labour has been happy to look the other way when getting close to the Muslim community. Simply look at the cases of child abuse in places like Birmingham and Rotherham where suspicions were not investigated due to cultural sensitivity. You can also look at how groups like CAGE were accepted as spokesmen for the Muslim community. Labour are also willing to accept people like Mehdi Hassan or (not Muslim I know) Diane Abbott in their midst, despite very offensive things said in the past.
As for Cameron, isn't that the right approach? You criticise the intolerant parts of the Muslim community but make it clear it doesn't apply to all Muslims?
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader for over a century (and PM). Youngest leader for over a century (and youngest PM) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish) The first Catholic leader (officially), The first to be born outside the UK, etc etc
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During the Cold War, all the Commie leaders were blokes weren't they? There never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes. And if you seriously think the left have been ineffective r.e women's BMEs, and gay rights....well there's not much to say. Without the suffragettes, and suffragists, Mrs Thatcher would never have been leader of the Conservative party, because women wouldn't have even gotten the vote in the first place. I don't think it also takes a genius to know that Emily Davidson wasn't getting trampled over by a horse to votes for horses.
Who was the party who passed to act that made abortions legal? Who was the party who passed the equal pay act? It certainly wasn't the Tories.
And as for having the first Jewish leader - it certainly did nothing to stop anti-semitism in this country, which was still a huge issue even during WW2. In fact, wasn't it right-wing newspapers such as the Mail who spent time supporting fascists and freaking out about Jewish refugees coming to this country? And the Right are the 'real' equality people....yeah right.
Pushing my buttons? Your buttons appear to pushed.
The most widespread and virulent anti-Semitism, sexism and sectarianism today comes from the the less integrated parts of the Muslim community. It took a Conservative Prime Minister to come out and criticise it: the Labour Party was unwilling to say anything despite 13 years in power. In fact, they often indulged it, such as by hosting gender segregated hustings.
I don't agree with the nonsense gender segregated hustings - but that is only one example I've seen, so hardly 'often indulging'.
Cameron is also one minute being critical of the Muslim community on sexism/anti-semitism, and on the other hand getting all sensitive on whether the BBC call ISIS 'Islamic State' and saying it's offensive to Muslims.
As for Cameron, isn't that the right approach? You criticise the intolerant parts of the Muslim community but make it clear it doesn't apply to all Muslims?
That is fine, but IIRC what he was doing in that example was saying calling ISIS/L, well, ISIS/L was fine, but calling them IS was not, as though he didn't know what ISIS/L stood for.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
On this market at these odds I would favour Michael Gove. I think if Osborne takes the leadership Gove would be his first choice as Chancellor. Only if he owed Sajid big time would be get Chancellor.
Gove would be a brilliant Chancellor. It would play to his strengths (superb intellect and clear thinking) and away from his weaknesses (basically people). And he has been key to the Cameroon project from the beginning.
@GeoffM You prove my point. More interested in the symbolism of xyz being a leader as opposed to actual changes. And if you seriously think the left have been ineffective r.e women's BMEs, and gay rights....well there's not much to say. Without the suffragettes, and suffragists, Mrs Thatcher would never have been leader of the Conservative party, because women wouldn't have even gotten the vote in the first place. I don't think it also takes a genius to know that Emily Davidson wasn't getting trampled over by a horse to votes for horses.
Who was the party who passed to act that made abortions legal? Who was the party who passed the equal pay act? It certainly wasn't the Tories.
And as for having the first Jewish leader - it certainly did nothing to stop anti-semitism in this country, which was still a huge issue even during WW2. In fact, wasn't it right-wing newspapers such as the Mail who spent time supporting fascists and freaking out about Jewish refugees coming to this country? And the Right are the 'real' equality people....yeah right.
Pushing my buttons? Your buttons appear to pushed.
The most widespread and virulent anti-Semitism, sexism and sectarianism today comes from the the less integrated parts of the Muslim community. It took a Conservative Prime Minister to come out and criticise it: the Labour Party was unwilling to say anything despite 13 years in power. In fact, they often indulged it, such as by hosting gender segregated hustings.
I don't agree with the nonsense gender segregated hustings - but that is only one example I've seen, so hardly 'often indulging'.
Cameron is also one minute being critical of the Muslim community on sexism/anti-semitism, and on the other hand getting all sensitive on whether the BBC call ISIS 'Islamic State' and saying it's offensive to Muslims.
As for Cameron, isn't that the right approach? You criticise the intolerant parts of the Muslim community but make it clear it doesn't apply to all Muslims?
That is fine, but IIRC what he was doing in that example was saying calling ISIS/L, well, ISIS/L was fine, but calling them IS was not, as though he didn't know what ISIS/L stood for.
If Biden does stand, the Democratic race will be just as interesting - but in a different way - to the GOP.
If Biden enters the race, it will be taken as 'permission' for other serious Dems to jump in too. The problem is that their bench of talent with a national profile (other than its very old and worn leadership) is pretty thin. I wonder if Bloomberg will register as a Dem in order to be able to run.
Either Hillary or Biden will win the nomination and there closest rival is likely to be Sanders. Bloomberg was a Republican until recently and spoke at the 2004 GOP convention, he has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
Ummm, come again?
It was the Conservative-dominated Coalition that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918 that gave women the vote.
And the Conservative Government that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1928 that equalised the voting age at 21
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader for over a century (and PM). Youngest leader for over a century (and youngest PM) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish) The first Catholic leader (officially), The first to be born outside the UK, etc etc
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During the Cold War, all the Commie leaders were blokes weren't they? There never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
First Jewish leader (and PM) First unmarried leader (and PM). First female leader (and PM). Oldest leader for over a century (and PM). Youngest leader for over a century (and youngest PM) First openly homosexual leader (Scottish) The first Catholic leader (officially), The first to be born outside the UK, etc etc
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During the Cold War, all the Commie leaders were blokes weren't they? There never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
How is Section 28 a red-herring? Of course it negates the other stuff - the Tories have only begun to try to proof how inclusive they are of gay people under Cameron - someone, who incidentally used to support Section 28. Even Gay Marriage was symbolism, with quite a few Tory MPs - including Nicky Morgan, and Philip Hammond AFAIC - all not supportive of (Morgan has recently said that she'd had an epiphany and 'changed her mind'). It was Labour who step the steps that led towards Gay Marriage with civil partnerships.
I'm going to claim partial credit for that one...
A dear friend of mine was advising Blair on how to reform the system & how they could pass the act without alienating the Liberal High Anglicans within the Tory party. Until that point they hadn't realised that it was the term "marriage" which was the issue for many people rather than the legal construct.
Just looking at the S28 wiki entry - it shows how much society has changed on this issue. Homosexuality was still illegal in Scotland 1980.
The 1980s was the era in which HIV/AIDS was first reported.[6] The first recorded victims of the disease were a group of gay men,[7] and the disease became associated in the media, and at first even in medical circles, with gay and bisexual men in particular.[8][note 2] The association of HIV/AIDS with gay and bisexual men worsened their stigmatisation,[9] and this association correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice, such as homophobic/biphobic attitudes.[10]
Rising negative sentiments towards homosexuality eventually peaked in 1987, the year before the legislation was enacted. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, 75% of the population said that homosexual activity was "always or mostly wrong", with just 11% believing it to be never wrong. Five years prior to the enactment, a similar BSAS poll had found that 61% of Conservative and 67% of Labour voters believed homosexual activity to be "always or mostly wrong".[11][not in citation given]
The precursor was the publication in 1979 of LEA Arrangements for the School Curriculum, which required local authorities to publish their curriculum policies. Following the legalisation of homosexuality proposals for Scotland (added as an amendment to the 1980 criminal justice bill by Labour MP Robin Cook), guidance was published indicating that schools should not teach homosexuality as part of sex education lessons. This was part of a deal to ensure government support for legalisation of homosexuality in Scotland
OT - Cilla's untimely death will put the coverage the Labour leadership election has received from the MSM into some kind of perspective.
Southam- I don't think three score years and ten, plus a couple for good measure is untimely. It's not a bad age, and it doesn't seem that Cilla suffered the terrible afflictions of geriatric ageing that for instance Thatcher and many octogenarians experience.
It strikes me that going on, and on and on, no matter what is very much overrated.
Not sure about that. These days 72 seems a pretty young age to me. But that's how old my Mum is , so maybe I am a bit biased - she has a bit of arthritis, but is otherwise fine. My Dad died at the age of 67. He could have doe with a few more years. My mother in law is approaching 88 and actuarially has another five or six years left apparently. I read the other day that the first human who will live to 150 is already alive.
@JEO I haven't seen anything on the Labour government at the time knowing about child abuse in cities such as Birmingham. On Diane Abbott - I personally don't agree with her comments (I assume you're referring to the white people divide and rule comment etc) and I don't think the party do either. On Hasan; I don't think he's a Labour party member.
You're moving all over the place here. We've gone from Tories aren't big on females to Well She Wasn't Really A Tory, And They Didn't Change The Rules to Section 28 and gay marriage.
Section 28 was from memory largely a reaction to what was a very noisy gay rights period in time, when quite a lot of people were concerned that the Left's desire to stuff the issue down their throats was OTT.
Now - whatever the merits, it was a real concern in the minds of enough people to get S28 in place. IIRC nothing ever happened as a result of it. Happy to be corrected as ever.
It doesn't exercise me - it's one of those totemic things that gets wheeled out despite being from 1988.
How am I moving all over the place? I bought up section 28, because you mentioned Ruth Davidson. If it wasn't for the Left stuffing the issue down everyone's throats, gay rights wouldn't be anywhere near supported as it is today. They were in a midst of a time where AIDS and HIV were being called the 'gay plague'. Gay people didn't need to be demonised further.
I personally don't see ... [snip lots of other lack of understanding]
The fact that you and your fellow travellers don't see it is all part of the fun, Miss Apocalypse.
The Tories are trolling you and have been doing it for hundreds of years. Sure, you trendy-lefty children can bleat about "equality" and wave placards. But you are completely ineffective. You achieve nothing despite all of your pompous windbaggery (see SO for details). The fact is that in 1913 a horse trampled a woman in the name of freedom and equality. 102 years later and horses still can't vote. If you want to look for achievement in equality you have to look to the Conservative party.
This is why the Tories can push your buttons so easily by pretending to be 'excited'.
The Conservatives have a number of distinct and undeniable Firsts over the years:
By pretending to get excited about the idea the Conservatives are trolling you about maybe selecting a woman, maybe not. For them its second time around and an equal option. But the left, with all of their sanctimonious whining, have never dared put their pieties into practice.
During ze Cold War, all ze Commie leaders were blokes weren't zey? Zere never was once a female leader of a Communist Nation
Dr. Sunil, my dear chap, every half-decent pub quizzer knows that Milka Planinc was the first female leader of a Communist nation!
That's an angle - Who is Milka Planinc?
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
I will say BME cultures on the whole are far more sexist and homophobic. There, I said it.
I would imagine that's not consistent across all ethnic minorities. I imagine the ethnic Swedish and Brazillian populations in the UK are more tolerant than the white British population.
Let me clarify - I was too polite to say "non-white"
Plenty of Brazilians are non-white and very tolerant of homosexuality! This ultimately comes down to culture, not skin colour. What we need to do is to start embracing the fact we are all British together, and stop segregating ourselves up into different groups with different moral mores based on the country our parents or grandparents came from. Multiculturalism is just a recipe for bigotry having a hiding place. I'd love for us to get to the point where we don't have a "Bangladeshi community" or a "Polish community", but we just have people who are British but happen to have some Bangladeshi or Polish ancestors.
What does Ruth Davidson have to do with Section 28?
Homosexuality has been legal in Scotland since 1980. Ruth is Tory leader in Scotland. Section 28 was about promoting homosexuality as part of the school curriculum almost 30yrs ago.
@JEO I haven't seen anything on the Labour government at the time knowing about child abuse in cities such as Birmingham. On Diane Abbott - I personally don't agree with her comments (I assume you're referring to the white people divide and rule comment etc) and I don't think the party do either. On Hasan; I don't think he's a Labour party member.
You're moving all over the place here. We've gone from Tories aren't big on females to Well She Wasn't Really A Tory, And They Didn't Change The Rules to Section 28 and gay marriage.
Section 28 was from memory largely a reaction to what was a very noisy gay rights period in time, when quite a lot of people were concerned that the Left's desire to stuff the issue down their throats was OTT.
Now - whatever the merits, it was a real concern in the minds of enough people to get S28 in place. IIRC nothing ever happened as a result of it. Happy to be corrected as ever.
It doesn't exercise me - it's one of those totemic things that gets wheeled out despite being from 1988.
How am I moving all over the place? I bought up section 28, because you mentioned Ruth Davidson. If it wasn't for the Left stuffing the issue down everyone's throats, gay rights wouldn't be anywhere near supported as it is today. They were in a midst of a time where AIDS and HIV were being called the 'gay plague'. Gay people didn't need to be demonised further.
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
Ummm, come again?
It was the Conservative-dominated Coalition that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918 that gave women the vote.
And the Conservative Government that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1928 that equalised the voting age at 21
I'm not wrong. For much of the time both the Conservative and Liberal parties didn't want to give women the vote.
They only gave in because of the role women played in the war, and because it would look bad to extend the franchise men in light of that. But during the campaign for the women's vote, much of the political establishment opposed it.
The Tories seem to have come almost fully to terms with race and sexuality in all their glories in the UK, and are unrecognisable to the party that existed 20 years ago. Labour's challenge was always to come to terms with capitalism. It seems to be still struggling on that front, unfortunately, and could be going back to being the party it was 25 years ago. But then the Tories have always been the more serious about power. Part of that is learning to accept what a country is and working from there, as opposed to what you would like it to be.
@JEO I haven't seen anything on the Labour government at the time knowing about child abuse in cities such as Birmingham. On Diane Abbott - I personally don't agree with her comments (I assume you're referring to the white people divide and rule comment etc) and I don't think the party do either. On Hasan; I don't think he's a Labour party member.
You're moving all over the place here. We've gone from Tories aren't big on females to Well She Wasn't Really A Tory, And They Didn't Change The Rules to Section 28 and gay marriage.
Section 28 was from memory largely a reaction to what was a very noisy gay rights period in time, when quite a lot of people were concerned that the Left's desire to stuff the issue down their throats was OTT.
Now - whatever the merits, it was a real concern in the minds of enough people to get S28 in place. IIRC nothing ever happened as a result of it. Happy to be corrected as ever.
It doesn't exercise me - it's one of those totemic things that gets wheeled out despite being from 1988.
How am I moving all over the place? I bought up section 28, because you mentioned Ruth Davidson. If it wasn't for the Left stuffing the issue down everyone's throats, gay rights wouldn't be anywhere near supported as it is today. They were in a midst of a time where AIDS and HIV were being called the 'gay plague'. Gay people didn't need to be demonised further.
It's not just one comment from Diane Abbott. She made the divide and rule comment, she said she was unhappy with too many blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavians working in the NHS, she implied that West Indian mothers cared for their children more than others. I'm sure most Labour people would disagree with her comments, but the point is that she is not sanctioned or ostracised for them when a white person saying similar things would be. There's a degree of indulgence there where Labour accept a greater degree of bigotry from a non-white person than they would from a white person.
On the child abuse scandals, I am not talking about the Labour government, but local Labour-run authorities.
I will say BME cultures on the whole are far more sexist and homophobic. There, I said it.
I would imagine that's not consistent across all ethnic minorities. I imagine the ethnic Swedish and Brazillian populations in the UK are more tolerant than the white British population.
Let me clarify - I was too polite to say "non-white"
Plenty of Brazilians are non-white and very tolerant of homosexuality! This ultimately comes down to culture, not skin colour. What we need to do is to start embracing the fact we are all British together, and stop segregating ourselves up into different groups with different moral mores based on the country our parents or grandparents came from. Multiculturalism is just a recipe for bigotry having a hiding place. I'd love for us to get to the point where we don't have a "Bangladeshi community" or a "Polish community", but we just have people who are British but happen to have some Bangladeshi or Polish ancestors.
What does Ruth Davidson have to do with Section 28?
Homosexuality has been legal in Scotland since 1980. Ruth is Tory leader in Scotland. Section 28 was about promoting homosexuality as part of the school curriculum almost 30yrs ago.
@JEO I haven't seen anything on the Labour government at the time knowing about child abuse in cities such as Birmingham. On Diane Abbott - I personally don't agree with her comments (I assume you're referring to the white people divide and rule comment etc) and I don't think the party do either. On Hasan; I don't think he's a Labour party member.
You're moving all over the place here. We've gone from Tories aren't big on females to Well She Wasn't Really A Tory, And They Didn't Change The Rules to Section 28 and gay marriage.
Section 28 was from memory largely a reaction to what was a very noisy gay rights period in time, when quite a lot of people were concerned that the Left's desire to stuff the issue down their throats was OTT.
Now - whatever the merits, it was a real concern in the minds of enough people to get S28 in place. IIRC nothing ever happened as a result of it. Happy to be corrected as ever.
It doesn't exercise me - it's one of those totemic things that gets wheeled out despite being from 1988.
How am I moving all over the place? I bought up section 28, because you mentioned Ruth Davidson. If it wasn't for the Left stuffing the issue down everyone's throats, gay rights wouldn't be anywhere near supported as it is today. They were in a midst of a time where AIDS and HIV were being called the 'gay plague'. Gay people didn't need to be demonised further.
You brought up Ruth Davidson in reference to the 'left' apparently playing catch-up on the issue of equality, including gay rights. That's why I brought up Section 28.
It's not just one comment from Diane Abbott. She made the divide and rule comment, she said she was unhappy with too many blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavians working in the NHS, she implied that West Indian mothers cared for their children more than others. I'm sure most Labour people would disagree with her comments, but the point is that she is not sanctioned or ostracised for them when a white person saying similar things would be. There's a degree of indulgence there where Labour accept a greater degree of bigotry from a non-white person than they would from a white person.
On the child abuse scandals, I am not talking about the Labour government, but local Labour-run authorities.
I never understood that comment. I'm totally ok with blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavian nurses.
What does Ruth Davidson have to do with Section 28?
Homosexuality has been legal in Scotland since 1980. Ruth is Tory leader in Scotland. Section 28 was about promoting homosexuality as part of the school curriculum almost 30yrs ago.
@JEO I haven't seen anything on the Labour government at the time knowing about child abuse in cities such as Birmingham. On Diane Abbott - I personally don't agree with her comments (I assume you're referring to the white people divide and rule comment etc) and I don't think the party do either. On Hasan; I don't think he's a Labour party member.
You're moving all over the place here. We've gone from Tories aren't big on females to Well She Wasn't Really A Tory, And They Didn't Change The Rules to Section 28 and gay marriage.
Section 28 was from memory largely a reaction to what was a very noisy gay rights period in time, when quite a lot of people were concerned that the Left's desire to stuff the issue down their throats was OTT.
Now - whatever the merits, it was a real concern in the minds of enough people to get S28 in place. IIRC nothing ever happened as a result of it. Happy to be corrected as ever.
It doesn't exercise me - it's one of those totemic things that gets wheeled out despite being from 1988.
How am I moving all over the place? I bought up section 28, because you mentioned Ruth Davidson. If it wasn't for the Left stuffing the issue down everyone's throats, gay rights wouldn't be anywhere near supported as it is today. They were in a midst of a time where AIDS and HIV were being called the 'gay plague'. Gay people didn't need to be demonised further.
You brought up Ruth Davidson in reference to the 'left' apparently playing catch-up on the issue of equality, including gay rights. That's why I brought up Section 28.
It's not just one comment from Diane Abbott. She made the divide and rule comment, she said she was unhappy with too many blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavians working in the NHS, she implied that West Indian mothers cared for their children more than others. I'm sure most Labour people would disagree with her comments, but the point is that she is not sanctioned or ostracised for them when a white person saying similar things would be. There's a degree of indulgence there where Labour accept a greater degree of bigotry from a non-white person than they would from a white person.
On the child abuse scandals, I am not talking about the Labour government, but local Labour-run authorities.
As time marches on it is becoming increasingly apparent that local authorities of all political complexions were looking the other way on child abuse and grooming.
Really? You went from None, to Okay That One and now we've reached Any More? Sabine Bergmann-Pohl, the last (and undisputed) leader of East Germany.
Really, Geoff, you come up with yet another stellar household name!
YES, we all remember Sabine, don't we?!
I wasn't aware that you'd introduced a third criteria that in addition to being female and a leader of a communist country they also need to have appeared on I'm A Celebrity...
It's not just one comment from Diane Abbott. She made the divide and rule comment, she said she was unhappy with too many blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavians working in the NHS, she implied that West Indian mothers cared for their children more than others. I'm sure most Labour people would disagree with her comments, but the point is that she is not sanctioned or ostracised for them when a white person saying similar things would be. There's a degree of indulgence there where Labour accept a greater degree of bigotry from a non-white person than they would from a white person.
On the child abuse scandals, I am not talking about the Labour government, but local Labour-run authorities.
I agree r.e Diane Abbott. She should have been sanctioned, especially on her NHS comment.
I do feel there is an issue with Labour not wanting to be seen as 'racist' by not being critical of sexism within BME communities.
I don't see why the Tories seem to get so excited about having a female leader. Half of these same people have a mental breakdown over Cameron's policy on the gender-pay-gap etc. Some seem more obsessed over the symbolism of having a female leader as opposed to actually doing things to help women in the country.
I personally don't see either Patel or Greening being elected as Tory leader. Patel is far too hard-line, and it looks like Greening's career has faded into the dusk. I think a good bet for the Tories would be Anna Soubry, or Theresa May - (I think May is probably the best HS we've had in years) but I don't see the Tories going for them, either.
I should say that Theresa May is also an evil feminist as well - I don't know how that would go down with the Tory grassroots.
Equality of opportunity, aspiration and upward mobility are at the very core of Conservative political economic theory. But, as with any party, the Tories are not monolithic in their views on all political issues and there are bound to be some contradictions between the views of some elements of the party and the party position on other policy planks. Certainly there are some who hold more outdated views on women, but just look at Labour and the LDs to put that in perspective.
On Labour the only one I've really seen with 'outdated' views is Austin Mitchell (awful man). On everything else, Labour appear to have been consistent in their advocation and support for women's rights, ethnic minority equality, and gay rights for years.
It's the LDs who are the biggest joke. No ethnic minority MP? Really? And the Renard crisis....
Sorry for the delay in responding, dealing with phone calls.
In saying look at Labour and LDs for perspective, I was meaning policy disagreements in general, not specifically on women's rights.
The Tories seem to have come almost fully to terms with race and sexuality in all their glories in the UK, and are unrecognisable to the party that existed 20 years ago. Labour's challenge was always to come to terms with capitalism. It seems to be still struggling on that front, unfortunately, and could be going back to being the party it was 25 years ago. But then the Tories have always been the more serious about power. Part of that is learning to accept what a country is and working from there, as opposed to what you would like it to be.
I think this is an astute post. I think part of it is that we operate within a media culture that is left-of-centre in this country. That means us conservatives are continuously exposed to the left-wing response toe very argument, and when we are on weak ground, we can't sustain the argument and get persuaded. The problem leftists have is that the same media culture means they can insulate themselves from conservative arguments (or at least non-stereotyped conservative arguments), end up talking to themselves and often maintain some very weak logical positions just because they are ideologically comfortable.
It's not just one comment from Diane Abbott. She made the divide and rule comment, she said she was unhappy with too many blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavians working in the NHS, she implied that West Indian mothers cared for their children more than others. I'm sure most Labour people would disagree with her comments, but the point is that she is not sanctioned or ostracised for them when a white person saying similar things would be. There's a degree of indulgence there where Labour accept a greater degree of bigotry from a non-white person than they would from a white person.
On the child abuse scandals, I am not talking about the Labour government, but local Labour-run authorities.
As time marches on it is becoming increasingly apparent that local authorities of all political complexions were looking the other way on child abuse and grooming.
Dianne Abbott is a hypocrite and a shit-stirrer who has no positive contribution to make to public life in this country, and seemingly very little interest in improving the lot of those who she is elected to represent. Unfortunately, she is a master of the kind of identity politics that Labour should have run a mile from years ago.
I will say BME cultures on the whole are far more sexist and homophobic. There, I said it.
I would imagine that's not consistent across all ethnic minorities. I imagine the ethnic Swedish and Brazillian populations in the UK are more tolerant than the white British population.
Let me clarify - I was too polite to say "non-white"
Plenty of Brazilians are non-white and very tolerant of homosexuality! This ultimately comes down to culture, not skin colour. What we need to do is to start embracing the fact we are all British together, and stop segregating ourselves up into different groups with different moral mores based on the country our parents or grandparents came from. Multiculturalism is just a recipe for bigotry having a hiding place. I'd love for us to get to the point where we don't have a "Bangladeshi community" or a "Polish community", but we just have people who are British but happen to have some Bangladeshi or Polish ancestors.
Sorry, you are right about the Brazilians (even watched a repeat of Michael Palin's programme on Freeview "Yesterday" this afternoon).
I did say "on the whole BMR cultures are far more sexist and homophobic".
I see myself as British, even though I was born in India. I grew up in this country, since I was a few months old. I see English as my first language (don't tell Mum!), and I have a rather unhealthy addiction to Britain's railway network
I see nit-picking here. She was the official candidate of the Tories. If they didn't want her - they wouldn't have given her the slot. Ditto Lady Astor - she again was the official candidate.
There's a point beyond which whataboutery really doesn't work, and that's why Tories feel no need to parade their virtues here. We only point it out when someone liberally minded comes along and thinks their side invented this stuff.
When Labour has a gay leader in Scotland, and a female leader in the UK - then they'll stop playing catch-up.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
Ummm, come again?
It was the Conservative-dominated Coalition that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918 that gave women the vote.
And the Conservative Government that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1928 that equalised the voting age at 21
I'm not wrong. For much of the time both the Conservative and Liberal parties didn't want to give women the vote.
They only gave in because of the role women played in the war, and because it would look bad to extend the franchise men in light of that. But during the campaign for the women's vote, much of the political establishment opposed it.
Votes for women were bound up with votes for working class males (40% of adult males were disenfranchised prior to 1918). Many suffragettes were opposed to working class enfranchisement, which hindered the campaign for female suffrage. It wasn't a straightforward left vs right dispute.
TBH, what I think this thread shows in spades is that nothing the Tories have ever done was enough, even if they were first.
And someone else was really forcing it on them, or did all the groundwork, or that past mistakes negate anything positive in the future and context doesn't matter.
Blah blah blah... Thankfully, most of us just find it amusing.
Pankhurst's membership of the Conservative Party may have had as much to do with ensuring her aims of obtaining the vote for women were achieved as with ideology
On Nancy Astor, I'm aware of her a being Tory MP. Didn't change the official position of both the Tories and the Liberal party on the vote though.
Nit-picking? I don't agree. I BIB that candidate in regards to Emmeline Pankhurst's motives.
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
Ummm, come again?
It was the Conservative-dominated Coalition that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918 that gave women the vote.
And the Conservative Government that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1928 that equalised the voting age at 21
I'm not wrong. For much of the time both the Conservative and Liberal parties didn't want to give women the vote.
They only gave in because of the role women played in the war, and because it would look bad to extend the franchise men in light of that. But during the campaign for the women's vote, much of the political establishment opposed it.
Votes for women were bound up with votes for working class males (40% of adult males were disenfranchised prior to 1918). Many suffragettes were opposed to working class enfranchisement, which hindered the campaign for female suffrage. It wasn't a straightforward left vs right dispute.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
I know that there's a few folks who think Corbyn may help revive Scottish Labour's fortunes in Scotland. However, in true SLAB fashion, Kezia Dugdale the bookies favourite to win the SLAB leadership, has today come out and said she isn't endorsing any of the Labour leadership candidates and then proceeded to get stuck in to Corbyn:
The SLAB leadership winner is due to be announced on 20th August - Kezia is still 1/50 and Ken is 12/1. Ken is indicating the result will be close, Kezia is keeping very quiet. Anyway I think Corbyn seems to have more in common with the SNP than the shattered rump of SLAB - the commentators on the right and the left are despairing:
The Tories seem to have come almost fully to terms with race and sexuality in all their glories in the UK, and are unrecognisable to the party that existed 20 years ago. Labour's challenge was always to come to terms with capitalism. It seems to be still struggling on that front, unfortunately, and could be going back to being the party it was 25 years ago. But then the Tories have always been the more serious about power. Part of that is learning to accept what a country is and working from there, as opposed to what you would like it to be.
I think this is an astute post. I think part of it is that we operate within a media culture that is left-of-centre in this country. That means us conservatives are continuously exposed to the left-wing response toe very argument, and when we are on weak ground, we can't sustain the argument and get persuaded. The problem leftists have is that the same media culture means they can insulate themselves from conservative arguments (or at least non-stereotyped conservative arguments), end up talking to themselves and often maintain some very weak logical positions just because they are ideologically comfortable.
The problem many leftists have is a refusal to accept evidence. The media in all its mainstream forms is part of the capitalist system. Look at the property programmes on the BBC, the business programmes, the consumer, holiday and lifestyle programmes. Any fool can see these are all about aspiration, getting on, making a profit and so on. But our Corbynite brethren choose to ignore this and the fact that they live in that world themselves. What it is, I think, is that for many being on the left is a form of identity above all else. That's also why so many of them prefer opposition to power: that way their beliefs can never be fully exposed.
Votes for women were bound up with votes for working class males (40% of adult males were disenfranchised prior to 1918). Many suffragettes were opposed to working class enfranchisement, which hindered the campaign for female suffrage. It wasn't a straightforward left vs right dispute.
As far I am aware it was the suffragists, who were classist so to speak - not the suffragettes, who actually left the suffragists originally (and form the suffragettes) due to how classist they were against working class women.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
Go on ... say "I am not wrong." again. That was funny.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
Go on ... say "I am not wrong." again. That was funny.
I'm certainly not wrong that many BMEs don't vote Tory.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
Go on ... say "I am not wrong." again. That was funny.
Hi all, at last, back on line after a horrendous six weeks of moving house, rewireing a couple of rooms to get on line and settling in. Hopefully, I can now rest on my crusty laurels and start to get back in the swing of things; like "you should have voted UKIP and thing like the Calais rampages wouldn't have happened". Told you so!!!!
Hi all, at last, back on line after a horrendous six weeks of moving house, rewireing a couple of rooms to get on line and settling in. Hopefully, I can now rest on my crusty laurels and start to get back in the swing of things; like "you should have voted UKIP and thing like the Calais rampages wouldn't have happened". Told you so!!!!
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
Go on ... say "I am not wrong." again. That was funny.
Hi all, at last, back on line after a horrendous six weeks of moving house, rewireing a couple of rooms to get on line and settling in. Hopefully, I can now rest on my crusty laurels and start to get back in the swing of things; like "you should have voted UKIP and thing like the Calais rampages wouldn't have happened". Told you so!!!!
@MikeK, As Britain would be better off out of the EU, surely the problems at Calais would be worse? After all, the better Britain looks compared to our continental brethren, the more the illegal immigrants will head for our shores, rather than hanging about in France
Hi all, at last, back on line after a horrendous six weeks of moving house, rewireing a couple of rooms to get on line and settling in. Hopefully, I can now rest on my crusty laurels and start to get back in the swing of things; like "you should have voted UKIP and thing like the Calais rampages wouldn't have happened". Told you so!!!!
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
Go on ... say "I am not wrong." again. That was funny.
I'm simultaneously commenting over on ARRSE at the moment where the body of one downed commenter is just a sandbag to defend yourself against the next target.
Sometimes I get mixed up. Twice today I've said something non-sweary over there and it's confused everyone.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
I would put it differently. Conservatives believe in equality - just not of outcome (which is pie in the sky wishful thinking) but of opportunity. That being the case, measurement and enforcement of equality centres on different things.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
Go on ... say "I am not wrong." again. That was funny.
I'm certainly not wrong that many BMEs don't vote Tory.
[Was about to counter until he suddenly remembers he voted Labour]
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
Go on ... say "I am not wrong." again. That was funny.
I'm simultaneously commenting over on ARRSE at the moment where the body of one downed commenter is just a sandbag to defend yourself against the next target.
Sometimes I get mixed up. Twice today I've said something non-sweary over there and it's confused everyone.
The Tories seem to have come almost fully to terms with race and sexuality in all their glories in the UK, and are unrecognisable to the party that existed 20 years ago. Labour's challenge was always to come to terms with capitalism. It seems to be still struggling on that front, unfortunately, and could be going back to being the party it was 25 years ago. But then the Tories have always been the more serious about power. Part of that is learning to accept what a country is and working from there, as opposed to what you would like it to be.
I think this is an astute post. I think part of it is that we operate within a media culture that is left-of-centre in this country. That means us conservatives are continuously exposed to the left-wing response toe very argument, and when we are on weak ground, we can't sustain the argument and get persuaded. The problem leftists have is that the same media culture means they can insulate themselves from conservative arguments (or at least non-stereotyped conservative arguments), end up talking to themselves and often maintain some very weak logical positions just because they are ideologically comfortable.
The problem many leftists have is a refusal to accept evidence. The media in all its mainstream forms is part of the capitalist system. Look at the property programmes on the BBC, the business programmes, the consumer, holiday and lifestyle programmes. Any fool can see these are all about aspiration, getting on, making a profit and so on. But our Corbynite brethren choose to ignore this and the fact that they live in that world themselves. What it is, I think, is that for many being on the left is a form of identity above all else. That's also why so many of them prefer opposition to power: that way their beliefs can never be fully exposed.
Southam Observer. It think you have hit on something there - it is a sense of identify. What I find most objectionable to it is that with it comes an undeserved sense of moral superiority. And it is that which blinds them to evidence.
The Tories seem to have come almost fully to terms with race and sexuality in all their glories in the UK, and are unrecognisable to the party that existed 20 years ago. Labour's challenge was always to come to terms with capitalism. It seems to be still struggling on that front, unfortunately, and could be going back to being the party it was 25 years ago. But then the Tories have always been the more serious about power. Part of that is learning to accept what a country is and working from there, as opposed to what you would like it to be.
I think this is an astute post. I think part of it is that we operate within a media culture that is left-of-centre in this country. That means us conservatives are continuously exposed to the left-wing response toe very argument, and when we are on weak ground, we can't sustain the argument and get persuaded. The problem leftists have is that the same media culture means they can insulate themselves from conservative arguments (or at least non-stereotyped conservative arguments), end up talking to themselves and often maintain some very weak logical positions just because they are ideologically comfortable.
The problem many leftists have is a refusal to accept evidence. The media in all its mainstream forms is part of the capitalist system. Look at the property programmes on the BBC, the business programmes, the consumer, holiday and lifestyle programmes. Any fool can see these are all about aspiration, getting on, making a profit and so on. But our Corbynite brethren choose to ignore this and the fact that they live in that world themselves. What it is, I think, is that for many being on the left is a form of identity above all else. That's also why so many of them prefer opposition to power: that way their beliefs can never be fully exposed.
I think there is some truth here. While news and current affairs are presented often in a left wing manner, much of the remainder of programming pushes a right wing bias in more subtle ways. The plethora of property programmes, the Apprentice, Dragons Den, Talent shows, Soap operas and historic dramas promote a capitalist and materialistic mindset.
@Sunil_Prasannan I actually agree. I certainly wouldn't say Black culture is a bastion of equality. I'm mixed race, and most of us need an intervention regarding equality - especially on homophobia.
The Tories have generally been a step behind, and yet they are painted as if they were in the dark ages.
I don't think they are in the dark ages, however I think that prior to Cameron they weren't the most inclusive of parties. I think the trouble is, the Tories have been seen as party that while arguing for equality of opportunity (I said this in a previous post) doesn't recognise the role prejudices such as sexism, racism, homophobia can do to hinder others opportunities and quality of life. Under Cameron, I think that's changed.
The fact is most people on the Right are instinctively skeptical of the State having a big role in enforcing equality. They tend to prioritize freedom of association, property rights, and free speech above equality. You could say it's the whole point of being right wing.
Then the Right can't really preach much about having been pro-equality all along if they think that. They also can't then wonder why many BMEs don't vote for them.
I'd like to think that there are BME voters who do value freedom of association, property rights, and free speech.
And of course, the corollary of your argument is that Labour shouldn't wonder why they're struggling among White, or male voters.
Some years ago there was someone posting on the internet, mainly on the Telegraph site as it was then, as Rosie Trees, or something like that, who purported to be a young single mother of "n" children (the number varied) and who had a phenomenal knowledge of politics, economics (both theory and practice) and social policy in post-war Europe, always from a leftist perspective. The poster was eventually unmasked as a Labour activist/Spad.
Does anyone remember the case and can anyone supply the name of the culprit?
Comments
http://www.cbc.ca/news
On Nancy Astor, as I said before you can't claim the Right have always believed in equality and then at the same time didn't want to give women the vote. That's not nit-picking, that it is a huge thing.
The Left playing catch-up on gay-rights? The left were busying campaigning for gay rights while the Tories were implementing section 28.
On parading their virtues - yes, that's why Cameron didn't try to prove the Tories were all inclusive with his 'A-List' r.e. women and ethnic minority candidates.
Not quite up there with Vladimir, Uncle Joe, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, or Fidel!
Left wing=Good, Right Wing=Bad.
Blair was a bad man so he can't really have been Labour.
Thatcher was a bad Tory, so she can't really have been a woman.
It's very unlikely that you'll be convinced by anyone on this stuff - but the debate is fun.
She was an Amazon in my book.
..and most kippers support Section 28 (probably)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_federal_election
There seems to be a lot of no-names that came and went, but I'm struggling to think of successful products of them.
Blair was elected with his Blair's Babes - 100 of them IIRC. I hate that expression, it makes them sound like Betty Boop.
Theresa May is more complicated. She's very good on some things, and has been suitably tough on immigration reforms. On the other hand, the Home Office seems to have one cock-up after another, and they can not all be blamed on what's been left over from her predecessor. I do worry that she has struck the wrong balance on security versus liberty issues when it comes to terrorism, when it comes to government surveillance. The European Arrest Warrant particularly seemed like a travesty of justice, if you look at what happened to Andrew Symeou.
Cameron is also one minute being critical of the Muslim community on sexism/anti-semitism, and on the other hand getting all sensitive on whether the BBC call ISIS 'Islamic State' and saying it's offensive to Muslims.
All of them are conservative cultures, and it's conservative cultures that tend to be sexist and homophobic.
P.S. The really decent, inclusive and tolerant people are all Whigs in my opinion.
Section 28 was from memory largely a reaction to what was a very noisy gay rights period in time, when quite a lot of people were concerned that the Left's desire to stuff the issue down their throats was OTT.
Now - whatever the merits, it was a real concern in the minds of enough people to get S28 in place. IIRC nothing ever happened as a result of it. Happy to be corrected as ever.
It doesn't exercise me - it's one of those totemic things that gets wheeled out despite being from 1988.
As for Cameron, isn't that the right approach? You criticise the intolerant parts of the Muslim community but make it clear it doesn't apply to all Muslims?
And wouldn't she have been second in command (as PM) to the Yugoslav President?
Gove would be a brilliant Chancellor. It would play to his strengths (superb intellect and clear thinking) and away from his weaknesses (basically people). And he has been key to the Cameroon project from the beginning.
So-called "Palestinian" Liberation Organisation?
So-called "African" National Congress?
It was the Conservative-dominated Coalition that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1918 that gave women the vote.
And the Conservative Government that passed the Representation of the People Act in 1928 that equalised the voting age at 21
Sabine Bergmann-Pohl, the last (and undisputed) leader of East Germany.
Had no idea, thought you were, er, non-BME up until this evening
A dear friend of mine was advising Blair on how to reform the system & how they could pass the act without alienating the Liberal High Anglicans within the Tory party. Until that point they hadn't realised that it was the term "marriage" which was the issue for many people rather than the legal construct.
YES, we all remember Sabine, don't we?!
Liberal Unionists. times have moved on, I'll have you know.
Homosexuality has been legal in Scotland since 1980. Ruth is Tory leader in Scotland. Section 28 was about promoting homosexuality as part of the school curriculum almost 30yrs ago.
What is the connection to these two points?
They only gave in because of the role women played in the war, and because it would look bad to extend the franchise men in light of that. But during the campaign for the women's vote, much of the political establishment opposed it.
It's not just one comment from Diane Abbott. She made the divide and rule comment, she said she was unhappy with too many blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandinavians working in the NHS, she implied that West Indian mothers cared for their children more than others. I'm sure most Labour people would disagree with her comments, but the point is that she is not sanctioned or ostracised for them when a white person saying similar things would be. There's a degree of indulgence there where Labour accept a greater degree of bigotry from a non-white person than they would from a white person.
On the child abuse scandals, I am not talking about the Labour government, but local Labour-run authorities.
S28 has zero to do with it!
I give in
So I will quit at this point
I do feel there is an issue with Labour not wanting to be seen as 'racist' by not being critical of sexism within BME communities.
In saying look at Labour and LDs for perspective, I was meaning policy disagreements in general, not specifically on women's rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus
I did say "on the whole BMR cultures are far more sexist and homophobic".
I see myself as British, even though I was born in India. I grew up in this country, since I was a few months old. I see English as my first language (don't tell Mum!), and I have a rather unhealthy addiction to Britain's railway network
And someone else was really forcing it on them, or did all the groundwork, or that past mistakes negate anything positive in the future and context doesn't matter.
Blah blah blah... Thankfully, most of us just find it amusing.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/02/kezia-dugdale-corbyn-win-leave-labour-carping-sidelines-years
The SLAB leadership winner is due to be announced on 20th August - Kezia is still 1/50 and Ken is 12/1. Ken is indicating the result will be close, Kezia is keeping very quiet. Anyway I think Corbyn seems to have more in common with the SNP than the shattered rump of SLAB - the commentators on the right and the left are despairing:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-backs-snp-bid-to-reform-or-axe-lords-1-3847265
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13524571.Corbyn_mania__how_many_open_goals_can_Scottish_Labour_miss_/
That was funny.
Mr. K, welcome back.
Of course, some of us proposed invading France and having an array of trebuchets on the south coast years ago.
I'm used to it.
Sometimes I get mixed up. Twice today I've said something non-sweary over there and it's confused everyone.
Fortunately I'm a civilised and erudite fellow all over the internet
And of course, the corollary of your argument is that Labour shouldn't wonder why they're struggling among White, or male voters.
Does anyone remember the case and can anyone supply the name of the culprit?